Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

ESSEX RIVER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Civilian Employees (Pay)

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will now make a statement on the arrangements which he is making to improve the pay scales of civilian employees in Ministry of Defence establishments including naval dockyards.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): Rates of pay for the Industrial Civil Service, which covers civilian industrial employees in the Ministry of Defence, are negotiated on the Joint Co-ordinating Committee for Government Industrial Establishments. An offer, including a £1·50 general pay increase from July, 1972, for adult men together with a further step towards equal pay for women, was made on 1st June and rejected. Negotiations on the committee are continuing.

Mr. Judd: Does the Minister realise that there is an increasing feeling among civilians employed in those establishments that the Government are trading on their traditional loyalty and using them deliberately as a brake on the economy?

Does he realise that the offer to which he has referred is totally inadequate to make good the ground which has been lost in the face of the rising cost of living? Can he assure the House that the Government are determined that these important public servants will be in the forefront of the Government's attention when considering what should be proper remuneration in the face of the Government's failure to control inflation?

Lord Balniel: Yes, of course it is the Government's purpose to ensure proper remuneration for those who are employed in the Government service. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to anticipate the outcome of negotiations which are at the moment continuing; and a further meeting has been arranged for 26th June.

Officers (Public Statements)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether, in accordance with the relevant sections of Queen's Regulations, recent Press statements by senior Army officers at Headquarters, United Kingdom Land Forces, on the rôle of the Army in countering political subversion and internal disorder were made with his authority; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether the statements about political matters by senior Army officers, published in The Times on 23rd May, were made with his authority.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether the statements by senior Army officers published in The Times on 23rd May about Army plans to intervene in industrial disputes were made with his authority; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Stoddart: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether the statements about the rôle of the Army by senior Army officers published in The Times on 23rd May, 1972, were made with his authority.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of State for Defence if Brigadier Frank Kitson, Major-General Ronald Buckland, Brigadier Brian Watkins and other


officers were speaking with his authority when they made public statements on politically controversial issues, such as criticism of the inadequacy of the police to deal with the miners' strike, of television and of the freedom of school students to hold demonstrations; and if he will make a statement.

Lord Balniel: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) on 12th June. Brigadier Kitson was not present on the occasion in question.—[Vol. 838, c. 215–6.]

Mr. Lipton: Has the Minister of State reprimanded the officer concerned for describing visits to his Ministry as popping up to throw a few buns at the odd orang-outangs? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to tolerate such undisciplined language from high-ranking officers who are supposed to take orders from their political superiors?

Lord Balniel: The officers' recollection of some of their remarks does not in every case coincide with the context in which they are reported. No disciplinary action has been taken. It was thought appropriate to remind all senior officers of their responsibilities under Queen's Regulations but not to take any further action.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister of State tell these well-paid generals that, if they are so anxious to get involved in industrial disputes like the miners' dispute as was mentioned in the articles in question, they should get first-hand experience of events that lead up to troubles in the coalfields? Why does not the Minister of State supply these people with pit boots and knee pads and let them crawl along a 2-ft. coal seam for a year, as coalminers have to do, and then perhaps they would know something of what they were talking about?

Lord Balniel: I am not sure whether the House thinks that that question is worthy of an answer. These so-called well-paid generals are people who have devoted a lifetime in the service of their country and I think they are entitled to slightly more consideration from the hon. Gentleman. The discussion, which ranged over an hour and a half, was concerned with Northern Ireland, conditions of service, pay and recruiting, BAOR and

the problems of dependants; and there was a short discussion on more general matters. The officers' recollection of some of their comments does not exactly coincide with what appeared in the Press.

Mr. Sharples: Will my right hon. Friend describe more fully the circumstances in which this interview is alleged to have taken place? Does he agree that it is very easy to make a good story by stringing together out of context a number of remarks which may have been made in the course of a long conversation but that it is not very good journalism?

Lord Balniel: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is easy to make a mistake. For instance, the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) has himself made a mistake in his Question. The arrangements for this interview were made by the Ministry of Defence for a journalist—Mr. Walker—who visited Headquarters UKLF on 19th May to gather material for an article on the Army in one of a series. The discussion ranged over a whole series of matters concerning the Service but they did not feature in the article which appeared.

Mr. Stoddart: Will the Minister come off it and stop defending the indefensible? The article in The Times is a responsible one, as articles in The Times usually are. Would he agree that these Army officers are either dangerous politicos and Right-wing members of the Monday Club or simply fools, and in either case should they not be dismissed from the Army? If the Minister will not dismiss them from the Army perhaps he will invite a deputation of Members of Parliament to go along and watch him being fed buns by these comic opera soldiers.

Lord Balniel: If the hon. Member knew the officers concerned he would not describe them as comic opera individuals. All officers down to the rank of lieutenant-colonel have been reminded that it is not for members of the Army to give in public their own views of the rôle of the Army in aid of the civil power. This is an important matter and it was thought right to remind officers of it.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: In view of the Army's front-line experience in Ulster, are not the views of the Army worth listening to as much as, if not more than, those of hon. Members who sit in


the comparative safety of the Labour benches and cheer on industrial anarchy and industrial unrest?

Mr. Allaun: Since these top officers knew that they were breaking the regulations in giving such an interview, is a reprimand sufficient? If they had been top civil servants who had made public statements on highly controversial political issues like this, would they not have been demoted or dismissed? Does not the Minister think that that should be done in this case to discourage further similar incidents by the top brass?

Lord Balniel: The hon. Member has made a second mistake. The officers were not breaking the regulations by giving an interview. The interview was authorised by the Ministry of Defence. I have had a report from Headquarters UKLF and it would seem that in a number of respects the officers were surprised by the way in which their conversations with the journalist were reported. For example, some of the remarks made in the mess at lunchtime have almost certainly been reported out of context.

Mr. Goodhart: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the Army should study the nature of the threat to society even if there is some indication that part of the threat comes through acquaintances of certain hon. Members on the Labour benches? [Interruption.]

Lord Balniel: The Army certainly has a responsibility to study tactics for counter-insurgency operations in which it has been engaged under the previous and all other Governments on many occasions since the war. The wider responsibility concerning subversion within the country is not a matter which falls within my responsibility.

Mr. Hattersley: I neither ask for disciplinary action against the officers nor do I ask the Minister of State to treat the article of 23rd May with more seriousness than it deserves, since I know that in part it is as embarrassing to the Army as it is offensive to my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. Our enthusiasm is not that there should be pursuit of persons involved in that operation but that the Minister should make it very clear that the opinions expressed do not represent the opinion of Her Majesty's Government. If the right hon.

Gentleman were to make that clear, I am sure we could all let the matter rest.

Lord Balniel: I can certainly make that absolutely clear.

Mr. John: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will institute extra measures to prevent the making of public statements of a political nature by serving officers.

Lord Balniel: The necessary guidance is given in Queen's Regulations, to which the attention of the Services is drawn from time to time. I do not think any further measures are necessary.

Mr. John: In view of the anxieties recently expressed and the undoubted political views given to The Times, is it not clear that further guidance is necessary? Is it not also clear that when a book like "Low Intensity Operations", which spills over from tactics into matters of political judgment, talks about the Army being prepared to foment subversion in certain cases, it is in urgent need of re-examination? Should not further guidance be given to officers to remind them that part of their terms of contract is that they keep quiet in public on political subjects?

Lord Balniel: I have already informed the House, I think twice, that the Services have been reminded of the Queen's Regulations.

Mr. Wilkinson: May I remind my right hon. Friend that the very same journalist subsequently produced an article on race relations in the City of Bradford which was totally inflammatory and very wide of the truth? It was repudiated by myself and by the leader of the community relations council in Bradford. If that journalist misjudged the mood of the Army as badly as he misjudged the mood of Bradford, do not all these articles need to be treated with extreme caution?

Lord Balniel: I note what my hon. Friend said, but I am sure he realises that this falls outside my departmental responsibility.

Mr. Booth: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will place in the Library a copy of the letter which he received from the National Society of


Operative Printers regarding statements made to the Press by Army generals at Wilton in relation to political matters, including strikes, counter-subversion, trade unions and the use of television, and his reply to that letter.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of State for Defence what was his reply to representations by the National Society of Operative Printers regarding statements made to the Press by Army generals at Wilton regarding political matters, including strikes, counter-subversion, trade unions and the use of television.

Lord Balniel: My right hon. and noble Friend has replied to the letter sent to him by the National Society of Operative Printers and I have placed copies of the correspondence in the Library today.

Mr. Booth: As publicity was given through the newspapers to highly controversial political views of Army officers, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is entirely appropriate that hon. Members should have access to the views of the trade unionists employed in printing those papers?

Lord Balniel: Yes, Sir. We are most appreciative of the letter which was sent to us, and I am sure that the organisation concerned was equally appreciative of the answer we sent to it.

Mr. Allaun: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the alarm among trade unionists, who know that it is from precisely this caste of top military officers that the threat to democracy has so often arisen, from General Franco to General Goering?

Lord Balniel: I do not think that in referring to alarm in this country the hon. Gentleman is reflecting the views of the vast majority of the population. He is entitled to his view, but I do not think this is a worry which is widely felt in society.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of people in this country, unlike Labour hon. Members, are delighted that the Army is studying every possible way to combat the enemy within as well as the enemy outside?

Lord Balniel: I believe that I can answer that best by referring to what my noble Friend the Secretary of State said in his reply:
It is, of course, important that senior officers avoid making remarks which are open to misconstruction, though in this instance my inquiries lead me to believe that less than justice was done by the manner in which the exchanges were reported.

Mr. Atkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that no future Labour Government would ever use troops in the way that the Government in 1947 were able to use them during an industrial dispute? Can he conceive of a situation in which the use of troops in this country would occur in the absence of emergency powers giving the authority for them to be so used during an industrial dispute?

Lord Balniel: I believe that the hon. Member is right and that emergency powers would be needed for the use of troops. I recollect, though, that the Labour Government used 11,000 troops in one month in the docks in 1949.

Mr. Atkinson: Never again.

Lord Balniel: The most recent comparable figure I can remember is the use of about 70 troops for one day for the clearing of refuse in Tower Hamlets in 1970.

Mr. Latham: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the rôle of the Army in industrial disputes and the instructions given to high ranking officers regarding the making of political statements.

Lord Balniel: It is for the Government of the day to decide whether a civil emergency is so serious as to justify using the resources of the Armed Forces to help in maintaining essential supplies or service to the community.
For the second part of the Question, the necessary guidance is given in Queen's Regulations.

Mr. Latham: In view of the earlier exchanges, will the Minister explain to the House, whether a distinction is made between oral political statements and political statements contained in books written by high-ranking officers? As the Minister is not equipped to comment


upon the overall contents of Brigadier Kitson's publication, will he be good enough to undertake to make a further statement to the House when he has finished reading the book?

Lord Balniel: As I have explained, the interview referred to was authorised by the Ministry of Defence but the issue of public statements is covered by the relevant paragraphs of Queen's Regulations. One of the principles on which these provisions are based is that public statements or discussions about future defence policy or about controversial issues of current defence policy should be reserved to Ministers. Service personnel are not to express views on such controversial issues to the Press or to other media.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Is HANSARD normally available within Service headquarters so that the views of Shadow Ministers on defence as expressed today may be clearly understood within the Service?

Lord Balniel: I suspect that there will be widespread interest in the exchanges which have taken place and that there will be many orders for today's HANSARD.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Minister accept that the Opposition are deeply disturbed by the contents of the book and the official recognition of the book, and are a great deal more disturbed by the flippancy and arrogance of the Minister's performance today? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore take it from me that, unless he can find another opportunity to make amends for his performance today, we shall have to return to the subject in the very near future?

Political Education

Mr. Roderick: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he is satisfied with present arrangements for the political education of the Services; and if he will make a statement.

Lord Balniel: I am satisfied with the arrangements by which the Services are informed about national and international affairs.

Mr. Roderick: Has the Minister of State read the article which appeared in The Times of 23rd May which quotes Brigadier Watkins as saying:
The whole period of the miners' strike made us realise that the present size of the

police force is too small…things have now got to the stage where there are not enough resources to deal with the increasing numbers who are not prepared to respect the law.
What changes are envisaged in the political education of Army officers so that they can recognise subversion?

Lord Balniel: I have read the article. Responsibility for the size of the police force belongs to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I think the whole House would agree that it is important that officers and all ranks in the Services should be encouraged to study current affairs to ensure that the Services as a whole are well informed and properly informed about current trends and events. I should have thought this proposition would command general support throughout the House.

Mr. Waddington: Do not all these questions throw an interesting light on the attiude of hon. Members opposite? What is wrong with the proposition that if the police find themselves unable to maintain law and order the Army should be ready, available and equipped to go to the aid of the civil power? Is not that part of English law, well known to all of us? If hon. Members are being asked to pay attention to an article in The Times of 23rd May, will my right hon. Friend also invite their attention to another article which appeared the next day which referred to the influence of Communism on industrial strife in this country?

Lord Balniel: I am surprised at the immediacy with which the Opposition have seized upon the opportunity of criticising officers who are reported as having made certain remarks. None the less, my hon. and learned Friend has raised an extremely important issue. The responsibility for deciding when to use troops in aid of the civil power, should the event ever arise, is the responsibility—[Interruption.]—it arose out of the Labour Government—for the Government themselves, and they will take that decision only with the utmost circumspection.

Mr. John Morris: Does the Minister of State recognise that the anxiety felt by my hon. Friends arises because senior military officers have opened their big mouths in this way? Having done so, those officers of necessity run the risk of


criticism and my hon. Friends are right to criticise them. Does not the whole House fear the spectre of the political soldier, who has not been seen in this island on many occasions since (the time of Cromwell? Will the right hon. Gentleman remind senior military officers that it is the task of this House and the Government, elected by the people, to ensure that the forces carry out the tasks given to them and it is not for the forces to suggest what those tasks should be?

Lord Balniel: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who formerly had ministerial responsibility in the Ministry of Defence, is not very well aware of the anxiety of the Army itself not to become political soldiers but to fulfil the responsibilities imposed upon it by the Government of the day.

Through-Deck Cruiser

Mr. Luce: asked the Minister of State for Defence what progress is being made on the planning of the through-deck cruiser; and what year it is intended to commission the first one.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Ian Gilmour): Good progress is being made on the design of the through-deck cruiser under the shipbuilders involvement contract recently placed with Messrs. Vickers. We hope to order the first ship towards the end of this financial year and our plans provide for her acceptance into service in 1978.

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree, however, that for the foreseeable future Britain requires effective seaborne air support to fulfil our overseas interests and obligations? Does he accept that with the scrapping of the "Eagle" and the intermittent availability of the aircraft carrier "Ark Royal" until 1978, our ability to fulfil that rôle will be severely limited? Will he therefore urgently consider speeding up the production of the new through-deck cruiser?

Mr. Gilmour: Wider questions of naval strategy are rather beyond the subject matter of the Question. I do not think there is any chance of our being able to speed up plans for the through-deck cruiser, which are going very well.

Mr. Dalyell: The current estimated cost is £60 million?

Mr. Gilmour: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was asking a question. If he was, he must know the answer. We do not make comments on questions of that sort.

Mr. Wall: Has my hon. Friend yet made up his mind whether the ships will operate vertical take-off aircraft? If not, are they worth the £60 million referred to?

Mr. Gilmour: First, I did not refer to the £60 million. Secondly, my hon. Friend has a Question on this subject later.

Mr. John Morris: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the intended rate of ordering and how many through-deck cruisers the Government intend to order? Is it not the case that the peak expenditure on through-deck cruisers may well coincide with a great part of the expenditure on multi-rôle combat aircraft and that there may well be other projects as well? Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House as soon as may be, perhaps today but certainly in the next White Paper, how it is proposed to finance these ventures?

Mr. Gilmour: I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman any more about the rate of ordering than he knows. He knows when the expenditure on the MRCA will fall, and he also knows that the financing of these ventures will come out of the defence budget.

Toxic Materials (Transport)

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he has to improve procedures for the transportation of thionyl chloride, and other toxic materials, by his Department: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Thionyl chloride is a chemical widely used in industry and laboratories. The transport arrangements made by the Ministry of Defence for this and other toxic materials fully comply with the regulations and recommended good practice for the transport of such goods.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend ensure that when such noxious substances are transported to or from the Chemical Defence Establishment by rail the wagons are not shunted or left in sidings in close


proximity to residential property, in view of the fact that it was due only to the alertness of a railwayman noticing a leak and prompt action by Gloucester's outstanding fire service that a tragedy was averted in Gloucester only last month?

Mr. Gilmour: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the alertness of the Gloucester fire brigade, but it is possible to exaggerate the danger of the incident, which we are still investigating. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the rarity of such incidents shows what careful precautions we take.

Military Research

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of State for Defence what new consideration he is giving, in the light of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, as to the long-term level of military research in Great Britain, appropriate to the size of the nation.

Lord Balniel: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 8th June.—[Vol. 838, c. 135.]

Mr. Dalyell: Does that mean that SALT is having no effect on the long-term thinking of the Department in relation to research?

Lord Balniel: No, Sir. We have been closely consulted in the bilateral talks between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and we have contributed to the SALT discussions, which I think the whole House agrees have been a great step forward.

Northern Ireland

Mr. Duffy: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the present Army civilian arrest procedures in operation in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Lord Balniel: The instructions issued to the Army in Northern Ireland on the subject of arrest procedures are kept under constant review and are designed to ensure that arrests are properly carried out.

Mr. Duffy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I was in Northern Ireland a fortnight ago I was meeting people who were still bitterly resentful

and critical of civilian arrest procedures employed by the Army, which they thought unnecessarily tough and discriminatory? Whatever changes may now be impending in the light of the statement to be made later by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, does not the Minister think that his right hon. Friend's hard-won gains will not be preserved unless civilian arrest procedures are kept under the most scrupulous review?

Lord Balniel: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the civilian arrest procedures must be kept under scrupulous review and control. Troops have been instructed that they should not use more force than is necessary in carrying out arrests. I do not accept the fairly sweeping allegation which I think was made to the hon. Gentleman by some people. Where there appears to be evidence of a criminal offence the case is referred to the civil authority, which is responsible for deciding what action, if any, is called for.

Mr. McMaster: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that no instructions are given to the troops which in any way inhibit their ability to pursue terrorists who have been either shooting at them or attacking them in any other way, or who are attacking any member of the public in Northern Ireland, and ensure that terrorists are pursued even into buildings so that an effective arrest can be made, in order to protect both soldiers and citizens for the future?

Lord Balniel: Yes, Sir. The Services have a responsibility to aid the civil power in the maintenance of law and order and they take whatever action is appropriate to do so.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: asked the Minister of State for Defence what consideration he has given to further measures to control illegal traffic across the border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland.

Lord Balniel: The security forces continue to exercise as tight a control on the border as is practicable. Naturally the requirement for further measures is kept under constant review.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: As the situation may be slightly more hopeful


now than when I put down the Question, I will not press my right hon. Friend any further by way of supplementary question, because the last thing any of us in the House should do—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The word must match the intention.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement on the provision of compensation for the relatives of the men killed in Londonderry on 30th January last who were found innocent by the Widgery Report.

Lord Balniel: Negotiations are taking place in respect of the claims which have been received.

Mr. Willey: Will the Minister try to expedite these negotiations? Surely he realises that evidence of generous and sympathetic consideration would do a great deal to improve relations?

Lord Balniel: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that these claims should be settled as speedily as circumstances permit.

Royal Air Force (Jaguar Aircraft Pilots)

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Minister of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that an adequate supply of experienced pilots is available when the Jaguar comes into operational service with the Royal Air Force.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Lord Lambton): The demand for pilots experienced in the ground attack rôle will increase when the Jaguar comes into service. To ensure an adequate supply of pilots and provide realistic training in an operational environment, two squadrons of Hunters are to be formed in the United Kingdom, beginning later this year. Their prime purpose is training to the high standard required for the Jaguar but the squadrons could, if necessary, undertake operational tasks.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my noble Friend aware how very much I welcome that statement? Any announcement like this will only bring joy to those in the Royal Air Force, because they will see it as an

augmentation of their total spectrum of capability. Where will the squadrons be located and what manpower effects will ensue?

Lord Lambton: Initially the aircraft will be at West Raynham but after completion of certain runway repairs they will go to Wittering, where they will be at the end of September, 1972. Their deployment will involve an increase of about 180 Service personnel at RAF Wittering, although that does not represent an increase in RAF numbers overall.

Unidentified Flying Objects

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Minister of State for Defence how many members of Her Majesty's Forces are engaged in the investigation of reports of unidentified flying objects at the present time; and what is the comparable figure for 10 years ago.

Lord Lambton: No members of Her Majesty's Forces are engaged full-time on the investigation of unidentified flying objects but reports are examined, as necessary, by appropriate specialist staff at the Ministry of Defence headquarters, Royal Air Force commands and elsewhere as a normal staff function to determine whether there are any possible defence implications. Details of the numbers engaged on such investigations 10 years ago are not, I regret, available; but there has been no significant change over that period.

Mr. Lamond: Does not the Minister think that this would be an excellent job for some of the Army officers we have just been speaking about? Many citizens would like the Government's reassurance that the Government are not to blame for the coldest Midsummer Day we have had this century and confirmation of their belief that it is due to unidentified flying objects.

Lord Lambton: I do not know what the question is, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to look into this investigation himself.

Mr. Gorst: Will my hon. Friend inform the House what, within the context of his answer, he means by an "unidentified flying object"?

Lord Lambton: A flying object which is unidentified.

BAOR (Honest John)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the replacement of Honest John in the British Army of the Rhine.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 9th March.—[Vol. 832, c. 374.]

Mr. Wall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the replacement of Honest John is now long overdue? Would it not be possible to have some offset arrangement so that, if we bought Lance, the Americans would buy Harrier or Rapier, which offset would be a great advantage to the alliance?

Mr. Gilmour: As my right hon. Friend told my hon. Friend some time ago, this situation is always kept under review, but there are matters of cost, the extent to which our operational requirements are met and other priorities which have to be taken into account. If there were a purchase of Lance, of course offset arrangements would be very important.

Mr. Paget: Is it not true that the idea of tactical nuclear weapons has long been written off as nonsense? Surely we do not want to spend any more money on that nonsense.

Mr. Gilmour: No, it is not true.

Industrial Disputes (Use of Troops)

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Minister of State for Defence what arrangements have been made by the Army to ensure that troops have the necessary training to drive lorries, load containers, drive railway engines, act as signalmen and to operate overhead cranes should Her Majesty's Government decide to use troops for this purpose during an industrial dispute.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith): The Army does not carry out any training specifically to fit soldiers for use in an industrial dispute. If, however, it should at any time prove necessary to use Servicemen to protect

the public interest, certain military skills possessed by soldiers might be suitable.

Mr. Atkinson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread disquiet throughout industry and the suspicions that the Army is being specially trained to undertake tasks as strike-breakers, and is being trained specially for the handling of dock equipment, so that more than the numbers of troops previously known to have this sort of experience could be used to break an industrial dispute on the docks and the railways?

Mr. Johnson Smith: The allegation made by the hon. Member is completely without foundation. It is true of course that the Army has men skilled in the use of cranes, as in other pursuits with a civilian application, but they are not trained for the purpose of strike-breaking. I never heard a more ridiculous accusation in my life.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Would my hon. Friend accept that the public interest is more important than the views of a militant minority?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Heffer: Since the Minister is not answering his hon. Friend, will he try to overcome such difficulties as might arise as a result of the sort of position that my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) has described by agreeing that the time has come for members of the Armed Forces to be allowed to join a trade union, as is allowed in West Germany, so that that union could then affiliate to the TUC? Would not this be one of the biggest advances in the democratisation of the Armed Forces?

Mr. Johnson Smith: That question is very far reaching. If the hon. Member wants an answer, he had better put down a Question.

Sir Gilbert Longden: May I give my hon. Friend a further opportunity to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg)? It surely cannot be too difficult to say that the public interest outweighs that of any minority, militant or not.

Mr. Johnson Smith: Yes indeed. I intended no discourtesy to my hon. Friend. I think it is self-evident.

"Low Intensity Operations"

Mr. Hattersley: asked the Minister of State for Defence to what extent the principles set out in the manual "Low Intensity Operations" by Brigadier Frank Kitson are the basis for part of the syllabus taught at the School of Infantry at Warminster.

Lord Balniel: The syllabus of the School of Infantry naturally reflects the experience gained by the Army in past operations, of which there have been many in the internal security and counter-insurgency rôle. Brigadier Kitson's book is an expression of his personal views.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Minister of State accept from me that some of us take passages in this book very seriously indeed—certainly more seriously than chance and foolish interviews given to newspapers on one occasion? May I refer him specifically to page 187 of the book which deals in terms with attitudes towards industrial disputes in Great Britain and suggests that the Armed Forces should keep on their strength personnel who could play a part in industrial disputes?
Will the Minister take it from me that such a suggestion is greeted with abhorrence not only by my right hon. and hon. Friends but by all people in this country who preserve and cherish our liberties? Will he make it clear that, irrespective of Brigadier Kitson's new position and irrespective of the support and tacit agreement given to his book by the foreword and by the relationship between the royalties and the Treasury, the Government disown and dissociate themselves from the contentious paragraphs which are therein included?

Lord Balniel: As I have explained, the book is an expression of personal views. It is widely felt, I think, that Brigadier Kitson's book is a valuable contribution to informed discussion on the subject. In view of the wide interest which has been aroused in the House, I began reading the book over the weekend but I have not yet reached the page to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that I regard it as a grave discourtesy to the House that a book which was published in

November and which has been the subject of Questions on the Order Paper for the last month has not yet been read by the responsible Minister? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me, since he has not read the book, that on page 187 two propositions occur. The first is that the paragraphs on that page refer specifically to Great Britain. The second is that the paragraphs on that page say that operatives who are capable of working on the docks or the railways or in other industrial disputes should be retained by the Army for purposes tantamount to strike-breaking. Will the right hon. Gentleman specifically disown that point of view?

Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman is very easily insulted. In view of the Questions, I thought it was a courtesy to read the book; I merely expressed the view that I had not completed reading it.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: If the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that the Army should be affiliated to the TUC were adopted, would it not be vital that those in the Army should make political speeches and statements?

Lord Balniel: That is one of the arguments which I am sure the hon. Member for Walton will bear carefully in mind before he pursues that suggestion.

Mr. John Morris: asked the Minister of State for Defence what instructions have been given to the British Army regarding subversion in parts of the United Kingdom other than Northern Ireland.

Lord Balniel: None, Sir. This is not primarily the Army's responsibility but the Army, of course, is prepared to deal with threats, including subversion, against itself and its establishments, and the necessary instructions exist for this.

Mr. Morris: In view of certain phrases in the manual to the effect that fighting subversion may therefore be right on some occasions in the same way as fostering it might be right on other occasions, and that the Army should be capable of carrying out either function, will the Minister tell us, in view of his confession that he has not read the book, who gave approval for the book to be


published and at what political level in the Department the book was looked at before last weekend?

Lord Balniel: Are we to understand that both the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend have read the book, or are texts being extracted by Transport House for their assistance? As I have explained, the book was written by an officer who is experienced in counter-insurgency and it is regarded as being of valuable assistance to troops who will have to operate in that field in such an operation.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Since civil and industrial disruption is undoubtedly one of the most effective weapons being used in the modern industrial state, and since courses on this subject are being given—or at least documents are being prepared—in some of our universities, is not the State entitled to protect itself against that disruption?

Lord Balniel: Yes. My hon. Friend will appreciate that no one departmental Minister is responsible for all the aspects covered in the Question. The Home Secretary has a major interest in his responsibility through the security service and the police.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: As the small professional army to which we are aspiring no longer has its former full rôle overseas, is there not a danger that the Army may turn its thinking inwards and is there not some evidence to this effect? It is a serious question. Will not the Minister look again at the position of the small professional Army and consider whether we should not be better served in present circumstances by the establishment of a citizens' army?

Lord Balniel: I assume that the hon. Gentleman means conscription, in which case the answer is "No".

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH LANARKSHIRE

Mr. John Smith: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to North Lanarkshire.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Smith: Is the Prime Minister aware that people in my constituency and

throughout the country are concerned that, although the right hon. Gentleman promised in June, 1970, to act directly to reduce unemployment, since June, 1970, unemployment in North Lanarkshire has gone up from 4·7 per cent, to 8·4 per cent.?
The news of 7,500 redundancies in the steel industry in Scotland has sent a ripple of fear through the whole central area of Scotland and many other parts of the United Kingdom. Will the Prime Minister tell us when redundancies will stop and when he will take the tiniest step towards honouring his election promises?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that the figures published at noon today showing that unemployment went down by 68,000 between May and June—the largest drop between May and June since 1963—would have been welcome to everybody in the House. In particular, the fact that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency unemployment has fallen by 0·3 per cent. should also be very welcome to him.

Mr. William Clark: If my right hon. Friend goes to North Lanarkshire, will he remind his audience that the irresponsible outburst of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) could damage the national economy and jeopardise the standard of living of every man, woman and child in the country? Will he further remind his audience that the right hon. Gentleman, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, has proved beyond all doubt that never should he be in charge of the country's finances?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition has not repudiated the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Ross: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his discretion on having no plans to go to Lanarkshire. A visit by him so soon after the statement by the British Steel Corporation about the brutal redundancies, and the announcement today of the highest midsummer unemployment figures in Scotland for over 30 years, would be considered provocative. If he changes his mind, he will receive a warm welcome from the people of Shotts.

The Prime Minister: Scotland will know what conclusion to draw from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to welcome a massive fall in unemployment. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's point about the British Steel Corporation statement, in the interests of the people of Scotland it is important for every hon. Member to point out to them that these proposals have been put forward by the British Steel Corporation, as it said specifically in the third paragraph of its statement, for discussion with trade unionists and all other interested parties. It is fair to point out that the British Steel Corporation also said that it is putting £60 million of investment into Ravenscraig.

Mr. Ross: That is not new.

The Prime Minister: There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman saying that it is not new. It is a fact of investment over the coming period. As the Labour Party always argued that the purpose of nationalising steel was to ensure its rationalisation and modernisation, how can it now condemn the BSC for doing what it was put there to do?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOMELESS PERSONS

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for the co-ordination between the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of the Environment to include, in the forthcoming report on the homeless, proposals for the provision of public funds to assist in the work and coordination of the Simon Community, the Mungo Community, the Cyrenians, New Horizon and other members of the consortium of voluntary organisations concerned with homeless and rootless people.

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government are already convinced of the value of the work of voluntary organisations working with the homeless; and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has made grants to some and is in contact with others about their work and problems in advance of receiving this report.

Mr. Janner: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are an estimated 250,000 homeless, rootless people in this country

some 30,000 of whom sleep rough each night? Is he further aware that an all-party group is being launched in this House today to help these largely inarticulate people? Will he assure the House of the full enthusiasm and co-operation of all Government Departments in this work?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman the very full assurances for which he asks. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services was delighted to hear of the formation of a consortium of all the various bodies working on this subject because he thinks it will be helpful to have this centralised body organised in this way. As I said in my main answer, my right hon. Friend is already in contact with the individual bodies, grants are being made to a number of them and he has discussed with the others how he can help.

Dr. Vaughan: Would my right hon. Friend agree that we do not need a report to tell us that many of the bodies are already receiving financial aid and that they could have more if they applied for it? Further, will he say whether the Government can give more direct advice to local authorities in helping the homeless and rootless?

The Prime Minister: I was not implying that a report was needed to show that action was already being taken by way of grant to various bodies. There is a study of homelessness in London, the first part of which is now being considered by the London boroughs and the second part of which we expect shortly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is now working out with the local authority associations a circular to all local authorities about the social service needs of single adults who cannot cope with problems of everyday life. This circular will meet my hon. Friend's point.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. GEORGE MEANY (MEETING WITH PRIME MINISTER)

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official meeting with Mr. George Meany, the American trade union leader, on Wednesday, 7th June.

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official meeting with Mr. George Meany, the United States of America trade union leader, on 7th June, 1972.

Mr. Ewing: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official meeting with Mr. George Meany on 7th June.

Mr. John D. Grant: asked the Prime Minister what official discussions he had with Mr. George Meany, president of the American Federation of Labour/ Congress of Industrial Organisations, on Wednesday, 7th June; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his recent official discussions with Mr. G. Meany, the Secretary of the American Congress of Industrial Organisations.

The Prime Minister: I had an informal talk with Mr. Meany on 7th June. The details of my discussions with trade union leaders from overseas are confidential.

Mr. Bidwell: Will the Prime Minister agree that he should not be so coy on the subject because it is well known that Mr. George Meany said about the Prime Minister's industrial relations policy that it embodied the worst and discredited features of anti-trade union law in the United States and that it was hardly likely to work in this country? On reflection, would not the Prime Minister agree that this has proved to be exactly the case? Will he not also agree that yesterday's meeting between CBI and TUC representatives, who are struggling to set up some sensible workmanlike arrangements in industrial relations, is a course much to be preferred?

The Prime Minister: Although my talk with Mr. Meany lasted well over an hour, I should point out that he did not raise any questions about legislation in this country affecting industrial relations; nor has Mr. Meany, so far as I know, since our meeting discussed any of the matters on which we exchanged views. As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, the proposal for conciliation arose from my meeting with

the TUC and was then discussed in my meeting with the CBI. Through these two meetings it was arranged that the CBI and TUC should meet for the first time for two years. I am delighted that this has happened and that progress is being made.

Mr. Ewing: Is the Prime Minister aware that it was widely reported that Mr. Meany was relating the experiences of both the United States Government and the United States trade union movement about such matters as the cooling-off period and compulsory ballots? Will he reconsider his answer to my hon. Friend and to the nation before his Government does irreparable damage to industrial relations? Will he seriously reflect on the problems experienced in the United States and withdraw his industrial relations legislation?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I must repeat that these matters were not discussed. The report originated even before Mr. Meany had his meeting with me. I must point out that the American system differs from the present British industrial relations legislation, particularly in terms of the last offer arrangement which is written into the cooling-off period. It does not alter the fact that American experience shows that the cooling-off period in those instances where it has been given has meant that a large majority of disputes have been settled either during it or immediately after it.

Mr. Adley: Following the latter part of the question from the hon. Member for South all (Mr. Bidwell), would my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the CBI and TUC have agreed to get together at last is an indication of the effectiveness of the Industrial Relations Act? Would he further agree that the long-term climate of industrial relations in this country appears to have had one good result already—namely, that it has brought the two parties together?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think the Industrial Relations Act has also had other results—[Interruption.]—in bringing about action in particular spheres of industrial relations where nothing had been done before. An example of this is the containerisation dispute. Because of the Industrial Relations Act, a committee has been set up and the Government were instrumental


in the formation or this committee through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Mr. Grant: Since the Prime Minister will not take advice from any trade union, who does he expect will help him over the next crisis resulting from his policies—the Official Solicitor again or the Official Receiver?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and his party ought to declare to the country whether or not they believe that the law should be observed. On the question of contempt, proceedings may arise in the same way on any law of the country, whether it is the industrial relations law as it is now or industrial relations as it existed before the Bill became an Act.

Mr. Tom King: Did Mr. Meany explain to my right hon. Friend the care taken by American unions to ensure that members are aware of their rights? Further, did my right hon. Friend see the serious allegation in The Times last week that a number of unions are not ensuring that their members are aware of their rights of action against unfair dismissal by their failure to pay attention to the Act?

The Prime Minister: This is not a matter that we discussed, but it is obviously vitally important that trade unions should bring to the notice of all members their rights and at the same time their obligations. I gave figures to the House the other day which showed that in the first three months of the operation of the relevant provision of the Industrial Relations Act some 1,600 cases had been brought by individuals, mostly by members of trade unions, against employers because of grievances, including cases of what they believed to be unfair dismissal.

Mr. Lewis: If the Prime Minister did not discuss these matters with Mr. Meany, will he invite Mr. Meany back and discuss these matters with him? Will he ask Mr. Meany to tell him a few home truths, and in turn explain to Mr.Meany that these matters were never discussed in this House? Will he also point out to him that if these provisions had not been enacted, we should never have been in the mess in which we now find ourselves?

The Prime Minister: There was every opportunity to discuss this matter before the Bill was introduced, both with the trade unions and with the other bodies—if they had been prepared to take advantage of the offer that was made. There was every opportunity for reasonable discussion in this House as well, and indeed the Bill took a very long period of time. There was also plenty of opportunity for discussion of proposals which were very similar in many ways to those put forward by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister and by his Government, proposals from which he immediately ran away.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the Prime Minister withdraw what he said a few moments ago about the Opposition not having said that the law must be obeyed? Is he aware that I said this twice on television before the first decision of the courts, and is he further aware that I set it on record last Saturday? Will he not throw around such smears and, when he does, will he withdraw them? Secondly, with regard to knowledge of the law, is it not clear that the courts themselves cannot get the hang of this law at all? Is he further aware that this is not only because the law is wrongheaded, irrelevant and incompetently drafted but, contrary to what he has just said, because we did not have adequate time for debate in this House? Will he tell the House how many hours and minutes the House had to debate—including ministerial speeches—the three Clauses which have been the subject of references to the courts?

The Prime Minister: I am glad to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that the view of the whole of the party opposite is that the Industrial Relations Act should be obeyed. If that is the view of the right hon. Gentleman, I will withdraw what I said. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will also insist publicly that if people are in contempt of court and held to be so—I am not referring to any specific case—they too should accept the verdict of the court on contempt. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make that absolutely plain as well. If there are any cases of contempt under any law of this country certain consequences follow, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it plain that he accepts those consequences, whether it be the Industrial


Relations Act or any other Act that is involved.
As for the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, I certainly do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's conclusion. I think he should read with care the judgment of the court on a particular case and not generalise.

Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has no right to prejudge future decisions of the courts about contempt. There have been no such decisions which have stood up on appeal up till now, and in the case last week the whole shambles was resolved by the Official Solicitor. Is the Prime Minister aware that, even so, I said last week that the law must be obeyed in that case? Further, I appealed to the dockers to go back to work in the light of the intervention of the Official Receiver—[Laughter.]—obviously he comes next; I should have said "Official Solicitor". Will the Prime Minister therefore withdraw the imputations in his last remark, as he was generous enough to withdraw his first? Will he also answer the question relating to the number of hours and minutes that we had in this House for debating the cooling-off period, the ballot and the blacking? If the right hon. Gentleman does not know the answer, I can tell him: 3 hours 25 minutes, 2 hours 5 minutes, and no time at all.

The Prime Minister: There was ample time to discuss the Industrial Relations Bill, and we all know that the party opposite was determined not to have a reasonable discussion on that Bill. But I put to the right hon. Gentleman again my point, which I do not withdraw, that where a court holds that there is a case of contempt, that means that it should be obeyed. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to insist on this, whether it relates to the Industrial Relations Act or to any other Act.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Business Question. Mr. Harold Wilson.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the Leader of the House kindly state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday, 26th June—Supply (23rd allotted day): when there will be separate half day debates on food prices, on an Opposition Motion, and the Piccadilly, Covent Garden and other central London developments, which will arise on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Motions on the Asian Development Bank Orders and on the Customs Duty (Personal Reliefs) Amendment Order.

Tuesday, 27th June, Wednesday, 28th June, and Thursday, 29th June—Further progress in Committee on the European Communities Bill.

At the end on Tuesday, Second Reading of the Harbour Development (Scotland) Bill.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named Opposed Private Business for consideration on Thursday.

Friday, 30th June—Remaining stages of the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill [Lords] and of the Field Monuments Bill [Lords].,

Motion on the Grants for Wholesale Markets (Extension of Period) Order.

Monday, 3rd July—Supply (24th allotted day): Debate on a topic to be announced.

Mr. Wilson: In view of the widespread concern, at least on this side of the House, about the announcements with regard to steel redundancies—even if the Prime Minister clearly does not share that concern, as he showed by his political quip earlier this afternoon—will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on this matter, since it is one of the results of the failures of the policy announced by the Government in the last steel debate, when we on this side moved a Motion of censure?
Secondly, I know that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the feeling in the House about the need of an early debate


on the sub judice rule in relation to the industrial relations legislation and, indeed, wider subjects raised by the Select Committee's Report. Is he aware that we on this side of the House will have to insist on a very early debate on the whole shambles of industrial relations, and that it will be extremely difficult for right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, and for Ministers, to debate the subject properly if we are still hamstrung by the old sub judice rule on which the Committee has reported?
Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman try at the earliest possible moment—I appreciate his difficulties—to give us a debate on it? If the Government accept the Committee's Report, I am sure that the House will be prepared to let the Motion go through with reasonable speed and dispatch. If the right hon. Gentleman can make progress, will he consider varying next week's business and putting on this item of business at an early stage, perhaps in the evening, so that we might debate the industrial relations situation at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Carr: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we realise both the fundamental importance of the sub judice question and its great current interest. The Government have been considering the Committee's recommendations with the greatest urgency. The House will realise that the recommendations of the Select Committee concerning matters before the National Industrial Relations Court are set in the context of a major recommendation affecting proceedings in civil courts generally. It has been impossible to complete within the last seven days, which is all the time that we have had so far, the consultation and consideration necessary on such a major issue. However, I assure the House that, although I am unable to make a definitive statement today, I will make a definitive statement as soon as possible, and I realise that we need a debate on it as soon as we have done that. I cannot be more precise today. But I hope that the House believes that I regard this as a matter of urgency.
Perhaps I might now comment on the steel situation generally. I pass over for the moment the right hon. Gentleman's unwarranted remarks about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. But

I must remind the Labour Party that the rationalisation of the steel industry was one of the purposes of nationalising it, and that the phasing out of open-hearth plants was part of it. My right hon. Friend—

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On a number of occasions hon. Members on the back benches have rightly been pulled up by you for straying into matters of policy during business questions. Is not it time that the same medicine was applied to the Leader of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I wish I could think that I had always called to order every hon. Member on the Opposition side who had strayed into these matters.

Mr. Carr: rose—

Mr. Robert Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it really in order for the Leader of the House to give a policy reply to a business question?

Mr. Speaker: If I am asked that question, I ask in return whether it is right to give a policy content to a business question.

Mr. Carr: My right hon. Friend will be having full consultations not only with the corporation but with trade unions, local authorities and Members of Parliament particularly concerned about the problem.

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I respect your ruling, but the right hon. Gentleman's reply to a business question is taking the form of a statement on the steel industry, and it will not be subject to questioning from this side of the House. If you allow this kind of statement to be made in reply to business questions, will you allow the matter to be pursued by this side of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I shall tell the House quite frankly what I should prefer. I should prefer these questions to be confined strictly to the business for next week, and nothing else. Of course if that is done it would very much limit the chance of the Opposition ventilating their point of view on policy matters.

Mr. John Mendelson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman represents all hon. Members, and is called upon to look after the interests of all hon. Members. He is therefore in a different position when replying to business questions. He has no right to make a statement on the situation itself—a statement which will be reported tomorrow—and thereby enable his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to evade having to make a statement on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the House to be reasonable about this. All the time that I have been in the House the Chair has allowed considerable latitude when the Business Statement was being considered so that Members could ask questions on matters which did not arise out of the following week's business. In any case, the Chair has no responsibility for the content of an answer.

Mr. Carr: I am only seeking to reply, I believe justifiably, to the policy implications of the question put to me. It is a fact that under the nationalisation legislation— —

Mr. Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must see that the Minister completes his answer, and then I shall take a point of order.

Mr. Carr: This is a matter on which hon. Members have pressed both for a statement and now for a debate and I think that I am entitled to point out to the House in reply that under the nationalisation legislation the decision about which hon. Members are complaining is not the responsibility of my right hon. Friend.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House is entitled to point out when a matter is not a matter of ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Carr: I am pointing out in answer to the question that I have been asked that since the matter is the responsibility of the British Steel Corporation and not that of my right hon. Friend it has not been the practice of the present Government or of the previous one to make ministerial statements and to debate these

issues, because they are within the competence of the British Steel Corporation under the legislation passed by the previous Government.

Mr. Harold Wilson: As we have had four steel debates in this Session, as I am giving notice that we require a further one and as in the last debate the Secretary of State's Ministers took part and defended the actions of the British Steel Corporation, will the right hon. Gentleman please forget that argument, which has not been practised in this House?
We have a lot of sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman having to defend the position of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Is he aware that there have been serious statements on steel closures—Derbyshire last Thursday, Manchester earlier this week, Scotland yesterday and again today—[An HON. MEMBER: "Question."]—I am asking whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware.—[Interruption.] This is not a laughing matter, as it affects thousands of jobs. A statement has been made in respect of Lancashire affecting some of my constituents. Would it be right, perhaps during business questions next week, for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement and stand his corner for his part of the responsibility in this matter?
Secondly, on the sub judice question, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome what he is trying to do in this matter? We recognise his difficulty, and appreciate that these consultations are important, but would he now answer my question? I asked whether, if he was able to complete the consultations in time, he would not hesitate to alter business next week so that we could get this out of the way as quickly as possible?

Mr. Carr: If I may deal with the last point first, if it is possible to reach decisions in time I shall certainly not hesitate to propose a change in the business.
Coming back to the steel issue, I think that the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that the general policy of rationalisation and reductions in manpower involved in that process are matters of ministerial responsibility. They have been recognised as such by both the present Government and by his Government, they have been


debated, and they were so debated and recognised in the steel debate only a week or two ago. What the Minister does not have responsibility for are the executive decisions within that general policy, and neither the right hon. Gentleman's Ministers nor my right hon. Friend have ever accepted responsibility for particular executive decisions, because it would not be proper for them to do so within the legislation passed by the right hon. Gentleman's Government.

Mr. Crouch: On a more boring subject, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether we can expect a statement on the Channel Tunnel next week or in the near future, because there is considerable concern in Kent about the environmental aspects of what might happen if a decision were made to go ahead with it? May I further suggest to my right hon. Friend that we should have a debate on the subject in the House as soon as possible?

Mr. Carr: I understand the concern, particularly in the areas adjoining that which my hon. Friend represents, but there is little chance of a statement or debate next week.

Mr. Latham: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the concern felt by many hon. Members about the lamentable decision of the French Government to proceed with their nuclear bomb tests in the Pacific? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for the Environment to make urgent statements to the House about the representations made to the French Government following the Stockholm conference on the environment, the curb on nuclear armament by America and Russia, and other encouraging moves, in that direction, to which the French seem remarkably insensitive?

Mr. Carr: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friends to what the hon. Gentleman has said. He could also put down a Question about it.

Mrs. Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the extreme paucity of time allocated to Questions on health and social security? Because of Northern Ireland Questions, which no one would want to curtail, the Secretary of State for Social Services can answer questions only once a month. In view of the vast

range of the Department's responsibilities will my right hon. Friend look at the matter to see whether there is a possibility of that Department answering questions more frequently?

Mr. Carr: I shall look at that. The rota of Questions is reviewed at regular intervals through the usual channels, and I am sure that what my hon. Friend has said will be taken note of.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the French nuclear tests in the Pacific may have taken place before there is an opportunity for a Question to be answered? Will he provide an opportunity next week for the Prime Minister to make a statement associating himself with the requests of the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand to the French Government to call off these nuclear tests in the South Pacific?

Mr. Carr: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will no doubt have heard that question, and I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to what has been said.

Rev. Ian Paisley: May I ask the Leader of the House when he will be in a position to announce how future legislation on Northern Ireland is to be brought before the House? Has he forgotten the promise he made to the Northern Ireland Members four weeks ago, that an early announcement would be made about how this legislation is to brought before the House? Is he aware that there is a very important draft on education, far reaching in its effects and causing grave concern in Northern Ireland, which is shortly to be taken by this House? Can he assure us that ample time will be given for the discussion of that? Does he not think that now is the time to prepare for a debate on Northern Ireland since so many things are happening there and as Northern Ireland is without its usual Parliament, which means that this is the only parliamentary forum that we have in which to air the interests and the feelings of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland, particularly with regard to the recent announcement of an IRA truce?

Mr. Carr: My right hon. Friend will shortly be making a statement on some of these matters. I would like to assure


the hon. Gentleman that I have not forgotten my promise about dealing with Northern Ireland legislation. I am sorry that I have not been able to make a statement, but I am pursuing this urgently and I hope that it will not be too long before I can do so.

Mr. John Mendelson: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the co-ordination of Government publications, will he, with great urgency, publish all the correspondence that has passed between the Government and the Coal and Steel Community of the Common Market concerning the future size and possible expansion of the British steel industry? Will he confirm that it has always been agreed by Lord Melchett and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that strategy is laid down by the Cabinet and that Lord Melchett and the Corporation are obliged to act within that general strategy? Will he arrange a debate next week on the future of the steel industry?

Mr. Carr: I note the policy implications of the hon. Gentleman's question. I will draw this matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend, but I do not believe it is part of my responsibilities under the category he mentioned.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Reverting to what was said earlier about rationalisation questions in relation to the British Steel Corporation, will my right hon. Friend confirm that any announcement next week or in future weeks on major investment decisions will be made in the House? In particular, can he give us an assurance that a proposal for the Hunterston green field site steel works, which is crucial for the morale of Scottish steel, will be made shortly and in this House?

Mr. Carr: I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to this, but the House must recognise what it has always recognised ever since nationalisation measures were introduced; namely, that if nationalised corporations are to have the responsibility which the authors of nationalisation wished them to have, if they are to have independence and responsibility, there must be a limit to the executive decisions which have to be reported to, and questioned in, this House.

Mr. Grimond: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, while executive decisions in the steel industry are a matter for the British Steel Corporation, the throwing out of employment of further people, particularly on Clydeside, is a matter for the Government and also this House? Is he aware that the sooner we discuss this matter and alternative forms of employment, if nothing else, the better it will be? This must be done with some urgency.

Mr. Carr: I appreciate that, and that is why I tried to start my answer to the earlier question by saying that my right hon. Friend was to have urgent consultations with all the people concerned about the future needs and problems of these affected communities. It is also the reason why the Industry Bill is going through the House.

Mr. Fidler: Does my right hon. Friend recall that last Thursday in answer to a question about the Local Government Bill he promised that he would be in a position to make a statement this week? Bearing in mind that local authorities throughout the country are waiting to go ahead with whatever plans are necessary as a result of the Bill, can my right hon. Friend say how soon that Bill will come back to the House?

Mr. Carr: I do not think I promised. I think I said I hoped that I might be able to make a statement. I am sorry that the hope has not been fulfilled. I must defer the hope for a short time further.

Mr. Heffer: Since the right hon. Gentleman could not assure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that there would be a definitive statement this week about the Select Committee's recommendation on the question of the sub judice rule, could he say when precisely we shall get that definitive statement in view of the urgency of the situation? May we also be assured that we shall have an immediate debate following the statement, and could it be towards the end of next view, because of the difficult situation in which this House finds itself?

Mr. Carr: I have already said in answer to the Leader of the Opposition that if we are in a position to make a definitive statement next week I will not hesitate to try to alter the business of the House to fit it in. I cannot make a promise yet.


This is a fundamental matter because the recommendations of the Committee in relation to the National Industrial Relations Court are set in the broad context of a major recommendation regarding the civil courts generally, and seven days is not very long to consider such an important matter as that. We do regard it as urgent.

Mr. Tugendhat: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I very much welcome the fact that Piccadilly Circus and Covent Garden, both of which are in my constituency, are to be debated on Monday? Is he further aware that one short, three-hour, debate on the affairs of central London, when compared with the amount of time we devote to Scotland and Wales and other parts, does not really seem adequate to deal with the immense problems facing this area?

Mr. Carr: I see my hon. Friend's point but Monday's business is chosen by the Opposition, as is the allocation of time. I hope that half a loaf will be better than no bread, but I will talk to my hon. Friend about this problem.

Mr. Jay: Is it not the clear wish of the House that we should discuss the steel situation next week, and will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the Business Statement that he has made?

Mr. Carr: I fear I cannot do that. The House discussed the steel situation within the terms of ministerial responsibility a few weeks ago.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend view with the greatest suspicion the request from the other side of the House to amend the sub judice rule before discussing industrial relations? Would he not agree that there is nothing to prevent the fullest, frankest and most helpful debate on industrial relations without interfering with the sub judice rule, which protects the independence of the law?

Mr. Carr: The sub judice rule is immensely important, and we all recognise that. Our Select Committee on procedural matters has made an important report, and it is that which the Government are studying.

Mr. Ross: In view of the reference earlier to the people of Scotland, will the Leader of the House direct a change of

business for Monday and Tuesday and enable us to take the Piccadilly Circus, etc., business after 11 o'clock on Tuesday night, so that we can deal with the important Scottish Bill between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.? More seriously, would he look again at this Bill, on which we are anxious to co-operate with the Secretary of State for Scotland? Does he not think it a bit unfair to start it on a night when we can begin only after 11 o'clock? Will he think about some night after 10 o'clock rather than 11 o'clock?

Mr. Carr: I think it is better to leave it as it is, because the Bill is urgent and is wholly non-controversial. It is wanted by all sides. I think we shall find that we can take it properly when I have suggested. It is in the best interests of Scotland to have it on the Floor of the House as quickly as possible.

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): Mr. Speaker, I will, with permission, make a statement.
The House will be aware of the statement put out earlier this afternoon on behalf of the Republican Movement to the effect that
the IRA will suspend offensive operations as and from midnight on Monday, 26th June, 1972, provided that a public reciprocal response is forthcoming from the Armed Forces of the British Crown.
As the purpose of Her Majesty's Forces in Northern Ireland is to keep the peace, if offensive operations by the IRA in Northern Ireland cease on Monday night Her Majesty's Forces will obviously reciprocate.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome—that is an understatement—the news of the cease-fire? I note the right hon. Gentleman's response concerning the rôle of the Army. Is he aware that, whatever the problems that remain, an end to violence in Northern Ireland is something that all of us in the House have longed for and worked for for some years? Undoubtedly, it is one result of the Government's change of policy of March of this year, particularly the change on internment. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it confirms what my right hon. Friend the


Leader of the Opposition told leaders of the Provisionals in Dublin in March, that violence would achieve no political objectives in Northern Ireland and that there must be a political solution in the end?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that, in our view, the final decisions that must follow must be taken by and through all the people of Northern Ireland, and that free elections are vital to realistic political dialogue? Would he agree that the words of the elected Prime Minister of Eire, published only a day ago, are very relevant now, when he speaks of "peace and reconciliation" and when he asserts that the Protestants of the North cannot be governed without their consent?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his announcement marks a turning point in the affairs of Northern Ireland and that he will continue to have the benefit of the support of all of us on the Opposition side of the House?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have always said that the first objective is a cessation of violence; upon that, everything else must depend. Many grave difficulties lie ahead, but the first essential is that the violence should end, and I trust that it will as from midnight on Monday night.
I welcome what the hon. Gentleman has said about Mr. Lynch's statement. It confirms the assurances given to the majority community in Northern Ireland by both sides of the House about their position as citizens of the United Kingdom for as long as is their wish, and I welcome what Mr. Lynch has said.
I also accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the need for elections and the need for the future of Northern Ireland to be worked out on the basis of elected representatives. Indeed, I am grateful to him for all that he has said.

Mr. Stratton Mills: How does my right hon. Friend intend to test the permanence of the IRA truce moves? While I welcome the announcement that has been made, may I warn that very great caution should be exercised? Will my right hon. Friend give the reasons, in his view, why the IRA have taken this particular turn? In particular, will my right hon. Friend deal with the detailed response of the

Army, to which he referred in his announcement, and give a guarantee that no action will be taken which would in any way endanger the security of Northern Ireland?
Finally, on the political side, may I very strongly urge my right hon. Friend to fix a date so that we can press on with the referendum procedure, ideally at the beginning of September?

Mr. Whitelaw: I certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that there is no question of any security forces not being constantly determined to protect the security of Northern Ireland. I think I am entitled to say that if the violence stops that makes a very profound difference to the whole security position in Northern Ireland.
I also note what my hon. Friend has said about the referendum. Mr. Faulkner made the same point to my colleagues and me. The Government will most certainly consider this point very carefully indeed.
As to why the IRA has decided to take the action that it has, that is a matter for the IRA and not for me. I can only say that I have consistently said for three months that I believed that if one could detach the main Catholic community from the terrorists this would be the end. I trust that it may well be. That has always been my purpose.

Mr. Rose: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed on all sides of the House? Is he further aware that it is an indication of his wisdom in carrying out his policy over recent weeks?
In view of the very fruitful discussions which the right hon. Gentleman had recently with Mr. Hume and Mr. Devlin of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, would he begin to prepare the groundwork for the roundtable conference to represent all shades of opinion and points of view in Northern Ireland with a view to peaceful progress, both economically and politically?

Mr. Whitelaw: Regarding the discussions on a conference, I had some talk with Mr. Faulkner about that this week. I shall talk to other parties with elected representatives about this conference to see how soon it can be mounted.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a positive and helpful development, which we welcome? As his good intentions are not in doubt—and I do not ask him to give a positive reply at this stage—is he aware that many of us hope that in the light of this there may be a far more rapid phasing out, or continued phasing out, of internment, and a rapid review of the Special Powers Act?
With regard to the "no-go" areas, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is probably far better to leave that problem to the pressure of public opinion, even those areas which are now clearly in favour of peace, rather than adopt any policy of patrolling or policing, which at best might be misunderstood and at worst might be exploited as provocation?

Mr. Whitelaw: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first two points, I note what he has said. He will have noted—this is a very important factor in the statement—that there were no conditions of that sort attached to the statement that has been made. That is extremely important from the British Government's point of view. As for the question of "no-go" areas, once there is a ceasefire, let me proceed as I believe it to be best. I wish to see the ceasefire first. I have my own views as to how I shall proceed thereafter.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State define a little more clearly, in order that the majority people of Northern Ireland will be under no misapprehension, the question of the reciprocation of the IRA truce? Is he aware that yesterday the Eire Broadcasting Company broadcast a very vicious statement issued by the IRA, saying that the IRA had entered into personal negotiations with him and that it had been given certain concessions? Does the Secretary of State realise that this does not help the majority of the population in Northern Ireland at present, when things seem to be in the melting pot?
Would he also assure the House about the people who are wanted by the security forces? Is he aware that in my constituency the security forces have evidence on a number of men who have shot in cold blood the sergeant at Toome Bridge, murdered the woman in Ballymoney and.

on Monday of this week, attempted to murder four policemen in Ballymena? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, whatever his statement means, it does not mean that there will be any let-up by the security forces in seeking out those who have committed such dastardly and wicked crimes?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell us something about the conditions he has arranged about prisoners in the Crumlin Road prison? There have been such conflicting statements about this matter that it would help to clarify the situation if we knew from the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box what the conditions are concerning certain prisoners in Crumlin Road prison.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have made the position of the security forces absolutely clear. I am not responsible for any statement in the Irish news. I have not had personal contact. I have made that perfectly clear.
Regarding the arrangements that I have made about prisoners in the Crumlin Road prison, I should make it clear that these arrangements, which I made in a difficult prison situation, are in line with what is already carried out in the special security wings at Leicester and Parkhurst prisons. I think that those remarks answer the hon. Gentleman's points.

Mr. McNamara: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he deserves the good wishes and support not only of the House for what he has done over the past few months in this difficult situation but of the parents of many of our soldiers who have been fighting in Northern Ireland in that peace has also been brought to their families?
Now that we have the ceasefire, will the right hon. Gentleman give us some indication of his plans for the reform of the social fabric amongst all communities so that those terrible sores that existed before this trouble started, which in many ways were a cause of it, will be completely eradicated?

Mr. Whitelaw: The law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland have had more than their fill of violence. Many British soldiers have been tragically killed. It is of the greatest importance that no one inside or outside the House should do anything which might prejudice the ending of violence on Monday night. We have not yet got the end of violence.


The House should understand that there may be considerable difficulties in the enforcment of the cease-fire. I should not like to predict exactly what will happen. At this stage we have to be cautious in being sure how it will work. It is a start to the ending of violence; at least, I certainly pray that it is.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will my right hon. Friend explain a misapprehension from which I appear to suffer? I understood that the Army was in Northern Ireland also to assist the civil authorities to search out and capture the thugs who have gunned down and murdered innocent people. I should like an assurance that the Army will search out these wanted men and bring them to justice.
Regarding the treatment of certain prisoners in the Crumlin Road gaol, Belfast, does my right hon. Friend agree that he is introducing a concept which is alien to our penal practice in that the special privileges given to those in high security risk prisons which he mentioned in England are not the same as the privileges being, or about to be, granted to IRA gunmen and others in Belfast prisons?

Mr. Whitelaw: On the last point, I have checked and understand that that is the situation. On my hon. Friend's first point, I have always understood that the purpose of the British troops in Northern Ireland was to keep the peace, and in that process it was right to root out the gunmen and pursue the terrorists. However, their job was to keep the peace. If there is an end of violence and the peace is kept, surely that must be what the people of Northern Ireland want.

Mr. Orme: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us are surprised that there is not complete acceptance of the statement made this afternoon? That statement has been made without any pressure or concessions. Surely all hon. Members recognise that this is a positive step forward. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us only hope that the Protestant community will have leaders at the negotiating table who will truly represent them and that the actions, for instance, of the SDLP and the manner in which it has conducted itself recently will bring it to the negotiating table in an open manner? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what immediate plans

he has, if the cease-fire proves to be positive, for phasing out internment?

Mr. Whitelaw: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, it is right and important to say that the majority community in Northern Ireland has been extremely long-suffering. It has seen its country destroyed in front of its eyes and life made extremely difficult over many years. It has borne this with great restraint and patience, and I am sure that the House and everyone else commends it. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland, like everybody else, will pray urgently that this really will mean an end of the violence. I know that is what they want. I know, as my hon. Friends have been expressing this afternoon, that that is what everybody in Northern Ireland desperately wants.
I welcome the chance to say again to the hon. Gentleman that this statement has been made without the sort of conditions that might have been attached to it. I should also say that, for the future, everything must await the outcome of the cease-fire and whether we get a genuine end to violence.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the warm welcome which has been given to his announcement includes to not a little extent a feeling of personal pleasure for his sake, recognising the acute difficulties which he has had to face and the almost insupportable pressures which he has had to put up with from all sides in this matter? Is he aware that all of us wish to endorse his concluding words and hope that this important step forward—it is only a step—will lead to something more lasting and assured?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also include in the tribute which he has paid those minority parties in Northern Ireland which are uncommitted, not only the SDLP, which obviously played a part, but the NILP and some of the other independent parties in Northern Ireland, without whose help perhaps it would not have been possible to make this statement?
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this matter, like the act of direct rule, will, when people have realised its significance, call for a fundamental re-think about a lot of attitudes into which people have been frozen?


Many people in Northern Ireland have said that they could not begin to move in this or that direction until they had some assurance of peace? If peace is now assured, could not this begin to change some of the attitudes that have stood in the way of a settlement.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generous personal reference. I must admit that the tensions inside one in my job are very great indeed, so I appreciate his reference all the more. Indeed, so does my wife, who has been in Northern Ireland a great deal of the time. I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
As for the people to whom tributes should be paid if the cease-fire works, there are a great many people in all parties, including church leaders, who have made contributions. If it works—these are very early days to be saying this—one thing which has caused me the greatest grief is the part played by the British Forces, who have borne grave difficulties, have undertaken difficult tasks and had, I regret to say, all too many casualties, which I find I mind very much indeed. On all those matters I agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
We must wait and see what attitudes will emerge in the future. These are early days and we have yet to get the end of the violence. Once we get that, a great many changes of attitude and outlook will come. However, the first thing is to see the end of the violence.

STEEL INDUSTRY

Mr. Charles R. Morris: In the light of the statement by the Leader of the House this afternoon regarding the steel industry, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
the statement published this afternoon by the British Steel Corporation on the future of the Irlam steel plant, which envisages a further 2,400 redundancies as far as the steel industry in this country is concerned.
I submit that this matter is specific and urgent because the statement made this afternoon is the last in a series of

four statements which have brought anxiety, dismay and alarm to thousands of steelworkers and their families in Ilkeston, Scotland, Manchester, my constituency, and today in the district of Irlam in South-East Lancashire.
The matter is urgent and important because it is vital that it should be seen that the House of Commons is not indifferent or complacent when the future well-being of thousands of steelworkers and their families is in jeopardy.
I submit that it is important in so far as the envisaged redundancies, added to the 7,500 announced for Scotland yesterday and the 20,000 which took place in the steel industry last year, seem to indicate that the Corporation's target of 50,000 fewer employees by 1975 is likely to be exceeded. That in itself is an important new development which should receive the consideration of the House.
Finally, perhaps I may make one brief point as to why I feel that this matter should have the urgent consideration of the House. The fact that these four statements have been made outside the House gives all the appearance of a conspiracy of Ministers who have political responsibility for the steel industry seeking to divest themselves of their obligations to the House. On these grounds, I hope you will consider my application.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for having given me notice of his intention to make this application. I say again, as I have said before, that my decision does not reflect in any way upon the merits of the matter. I am not allowed by the Standing Order to give my reasons. Sometimes I find that very frustrating, since I would like very much to give my reasons why I cannot agree to an application.
The point for me to decide is whether I should allow this matter to be debated at the expense of business already arranged for today or Monday. I am afraid that I cannot agree to the hon. Gentleman's application.

FRENCH NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. Farr: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter


that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The imminent French nuclear tests in the Pacific.
I submit that these tests are undoubtedly specific and that they are undoubtedly important to this country and to our dependencies in the Pacific. The Pitcairn Islands, for which we have full responsibility, are the nearest inhabited islands to the test site, and I understand that the islanders have been compelled to prepare a form of evacuation to put into effect at short notice, being only some 500 miles from where the tests are to be conducted.
Additionally, I submit that the matter is urgent in so far as the French Government announced yesterday that the Cabinet in Paris had decided to go ahead with a whole new series of nuclear tests at the site, despite objections not only from Commonwealth nations but from many other nations in the Pacific and throughout the world.
I submit that it is in the urgent public interest that Parliament should discuss this matter, and that certainly it is in the interests of our Commonwealth partners in the Pacific that Parliament's views should be conveyed to the French Government in the hope that they will abandon this dangerous attempt to keep up with the Jones's in the nuclear fission race.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) was also courteous enough to give me notice of his intention to make the application. I repeat what I have just said—that my decision reflects in no way upon the seriousness of the matter Mine is purely a procedural decision, and in this case even more than in the last I would like to be able to give my reasons, but I am not allowed to do so by the Standing Order.
I am afraid that I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's application.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Hugh Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I call your attention to an article on page 15 of today's Daily Maii which purports to report the findings of

your Select Committee of Privileges on your ruling regarding the appellation of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Lord Lambton).
I have the honour to be a member of the Committee. Our report, although approved at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, 20th June, had yesterday neither been typed as a document nor printed. Clearly, this is a gross, discourteous and, indeed, vicious breach of confidence by some Member of this House. Formally, I ask for your ruling that it is also a prima facie breach of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) has raised a matter of privilege and has produced the newspaper concerned. In accordance with the practice of the House I will rule upon it tomorrow.

Mr. C. Pannell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While you are considering this matter for tomorrow, may I call your attention to the fact that on page 664 of the Votes and Proceedings of 20th June, 1972, it is reported, at item 15, that the Leader of the House had
…reported from the Committee of Privileges, to whom was referred the matter of the style and title…of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed".
I call your attention to the fact that such reference has caused trouble before in the same paper, on the occasion when the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) was before a Select Committee. It arises, I think, from a confusion in the minds of the Press that it has a right to use something that appears on the Order Paper here. In this case, of course, the newspaper added what it purported to be the findings of the Committee.
I think that at the end of the day we should have some obiter dictum from you, Mr. Speaker, to the Press about the exact point at which it can publish without fear of consequences. I might say that this issue came before the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. There, we stated that it was a contempt, but pointed out that there is a confusion between the two dates concerned. The mere fact that a reference to the report from the Select Committee appeared in the Votes and Proceedings would give rise to the speculation which the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) is concerned about.
I would add that I, too, have the honour to be a member of the Committee of Privileges.

Sir Robin Turton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In giving your consideration to the matter, will you bear in mind paragraph 130 of the Report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which said that premature disclosure of proceedings should, subject to certain qualifications, be regarded as a contempt of this House?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged for this assistance. I will consider the matter and rule tomorrow.

STANDING ORDER No. 9

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Once again I draw your attention to two recent abuses of Standing Order No. 9 procedure.
The first one came from the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris). He made no attempt to justify urgency, which is the basis of the Standing Order. He used the occasion purely and simply as a vehicle to get over propaganda points, which is bound to undermine the strength of the Standing Order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) also raised a point which carried no urgency with it. It was

clearly a point which could have been answered had a special Question been put down, which I gather was not allowed. If it is a matter which should be raised at all, it should be raised under a special Question and not under the Standing Order No. 9 procedure.
If it is that this abuse of the procedure is allowed to go on, then this very vital instrument for drawing attention to matters which are of real importance and are really urgent will be completely ruined. I believe that this evidence should be taken into account and acted upon.

Mr. Speaker: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) to use the facilities of the House to display his utter contempt for the future of mankind in the form of unemployment and in the form of the nuclear threat?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) was on a point of House of Commons procedure, and I have noted what he said. I do my best. I frequently interrupt hon. Members on either side of the House when they are making their applications. This is a House of Commons point, and I have noted what the hon. Member for Peterborough has said.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 21st June].

[SIR ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 6

THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY

4.30 p.m.

The Chairman: We come now to Amendment No. 263, in page 9, line 1, leave out 'in charge of a government department', with which it will be convenient for the Committee to discuss the following Amendment No. 264, in line 3, after 'be', insert 'known'.

Amendment No. 265, in line 4, leave out from 'Produce' to 'and' in line 6.

Amendment No. 266, in line 6, leave out from 'Board' to 'shall' in line 7.

Amendment No. 267, in line 7, leave out 'the direction and control of the Ministers' and insert:
'an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament'.

Amendment No. 268, in line 9, leave out 'they' and insert 'Parliament'.

Amendment No. 270, in line 12, leave out 'Her Majesty may by Order in Council' and insert:
'The Ministers in pursuance to a resolution of each House of Parliament may'.

Amendment No. 271, in line 13, at end insert:
'and such membership shall include representatives of consumers' interests and producer representation'.

Amendment No. 395, in line 13, at end insert:
'and such membership shall include representatives of agricultural workers'.

Amendment No. 273, in line 24, after 'produce', insert 'or consumption', upon which I understand a Division will be required.

Amendment No. 396, in line 24, after 'produce', insert:
'or engaged in agricultural work'.

Amendment No. 441, in line 26, leave out from 'Board' to 'and' in line 29.

Amendment No. 274, in line 29, after 'functions', insert:
'or to the interests of the consumers'.

Mr. Peter Shore: In a point of order, Sir Robert. May I put to you a matter which I do not think will come as a great surprise to you?
I acknowledge the great difficulties that you have had in making the selection for today and in grouping the Amendments—there are so many and there has been so little time. However, may I nevertheless press upon you the claims of Amendment No. 449, in Clause 6, page 11, line 17, at end add:
'(9) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Act, unless there is in force on 31st December, 1982, a revised common fisheries policy for the Community which has been approved by Parliament, then on 1st January, 1983 the fishery protection measures and the fishery limits of the United Kingdom in force on 31st December, 1971, shall immediately revive.
(10) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Act, unless there is in force in the Community on 1st January, 1978 a long-term arrangement for the import of New Zealand agricultural produce into the United Kindom which has been approved by the Parliaments of New Zealand and of the United Kingdom, then the arrangements in force on 31st December, 1977 shall continue in force unless and until a long-term Community arrangement which has the approval of each of the said Parliaments has been agreed'.
This is the only Amendment which even remotely approaches the subject of the fisheries and New Zealand arrangements.
The purpose of the Amendment is to seek to write into the Bill safeguards for New Zealand imports and for our own fisheries at the end of the transitional periods—the very matters which it has been claimed have come out in the negotiations but which we greatly fear would not be sustained in the event. We therefore ask you to consider our application sympathetically and to allow us to have a separate debate upon this Amendment and to vote upon it.

The Chairman: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to make the position clear. I gave the question of Amendment No. 449 considerable study this morning, because I knew that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were anxious for it to be called. I regret that I am


unable to call it, because I have found myself bound to rule it out of order as outside the scope of the Bill. It is depressing but nevertheless true.

Mr. John Farr: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. Will it be in order to refer to that Amendment in the debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?

The Chairman: It would be better for me not to answer that question until we see how matters go. If an hon. Member can mention it and keep in order, that is all right. I should not like to say definitely that an hon. Member will be able to do that.

Mr. Fred Peart: I beg to move Amendment No. 263, in page 9, line 1, leave out 'in charge of a government department'.
I accept, Sir Robert, that we should have a Division on Amendment No. 273.
I am sorry that, for various reasons, I have been absent from the Committee during the previous debates on the Bill.
We believe Clause 6 to be one of the most important Clauses in the Bill. This is not to say that Clauses 1 to 3 are not important. However, we are now dealing with a specific policy which has been worked out by the Community and which will undoubtedly have a tremendous impact upon life in Britain.
I am sorry that the guillotine procedure will permit only one day's debate on a Clause which gives effect to the most important aspect of the Community's policy. This is a travesty of democratic procedure and practice.
The Clause gives effect to the acceptance of the common agricultural policy and the ending of our own system. Our system and policy were enshrined in the 1947 and 1957 Acts. The policy was accepted by all parties. I had the privilege of serving in the House during the passing of the 1947 and 1957 Acts. I have been present during most of the agricultural debates since then. Over the years this policy and these Acts have worked successfully and have been admired by many farm and political leaders in Europe and other parts of the world.
The Clause gives effect to the adaption of our policy to the common agricultural policy and the ending of a system which

has worked and which gave a measure of confidence. I know that there may be arguments about that in relation to price reviews; and that occurred under successive Governments, but the system worked. So we are discussing a Clause which affects our largest industry, our farmers, who I believe are the best in the world, and farm workers, and the nation generally.
The consumer will inevitably be affected. This emerges not only from the negotiations. The Treaty of Accession shows that the acceptance of the CAP will inevitably mean a higher price policy for the British people.
It will have an even wider effect. I refer to our international trading position, to our links with our traditional food suppliers. I think of the Commonwealth—of New Zealand, of Australia, of Canada, of the Caribbean, of India. I believe the CAP to be a dagger at the heart of the Commonwealth.
I think also of our traditional links with countries outside the Commonwealth. Too often people denigrate the United States. We have had good relations with the United States over the years and it has supplied us with food. The United States will be affected by the Clause. I think also of the peoples in Eastern Europe outside the Community.
So today we are discussing an extremely important Clause which gives effect to the terms negotiated by the Government and spelt out in the Treaty of Accession. Moreover, it will give effect to much of the legislation which has flowed from the Community. Three-quarters of the secondary legislation deals with the adaption and phasing into the CAP of our policy.
There are three sections of this very important part of the Bill. There is, first, the setting up of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, subject to the direction of the Ministers responsible for agriculture, to carry out the Economic Community's policy in the United Kingdom. There is, second, the provision for the collection of the Community's agricultural levies. There is, third, the provision for commodities to be removed from the scope of the present agricultural guarantee system as the Community system takes its place.
The Amendments are designed to probe into policies which will flow and into the structure which is being created to administer the CAP in Britain.
I ask the Minister to give the Committee more details about the Intervention Board. The board is to be
in charge of a government department".
I assume that the board will be under the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but there are other Ministers who are concerned with agricultural policy and who from time to time have had a measure of responsibility with the Minister on matters such as the Price Review.
I am thinking in terms of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has responsibility for Scottish agriculture. I used to think in terms of the Home Secretary, but I assume that it is now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who has responsibility for matters affecting Northern Ireland. Then there is the Secretary of State for Wales, who I believe has responsibility for agricultural matters under the present Administration.
Will the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food be responsible in the sense that the new board will be in charge of his Department? Or will there be a shared responsibility? The board will be responsible to Ministers, but which Ministers? Will they include Ministers from the Treasury? Treasury Ministers are not always very sympathetic to agriculture, as I know from my experience as a former Minister of Agriculture and a former Leader of the House. Over the years there has been conflict between Ministers responsible for agriculture and the Treasury. Will a representative of the Foreign Office be involved?
I hope that the Minister will explain the functions of the board. There was a statement, I think in February, of which I have a copy, which dealt with the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, the agency bodies, and the board dealing with cereal policy and cereal administration which will inevitably flow from the CAP. I hope we can have more details. I do not ask for too much detail because I recognise that further discussions must be held, but can we be told whether the board will have powers to negotiate with the Commission?
Will there be a liaison with the Commission through the board? Will the board be able to scrutinise the administrative arrangements which flow from Community directives? What is the position about other statutory bodies? I think the Minister has expressed himself outside the House on this subject and he will no doubt agree with what I say. Will some of the functions have to be delegated to important statutory bodies like the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Home-Grown Cereals Authority?
Will the Minister explain about the composition of the board. Will it be a large board? A decision on size is not always easy because Ministers are criticised if they make boards too large. Will civil servants be included, and will both sides of the industry be represented? Will people dealing with the administration of marketing, the retail and the wholesale trades be included? Will the Minister consider appointing people with commercial and administrative experience—perhaps local government experience?

[MISS HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

4.45 p.m.

These are all important matters because the board will have a tremendous influence upon the industry. It will have to advise Ministers and administer a policy which is facing difficulties even in Europe. I will not deploy that argument now but instead will deal with it in the debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". The first part of the Clause dealing with the definition of "Intervention Board" shows that it will be a powerful body and might affect Minister's decisions if it becomes all powerful.

Will Parliament be able to scrutinise the activities of the board? I remember when I was Minister being repeatedly pressed from the Conservative benches when I introduced the Home-Grown Cereals Authority and the Meat and Livestock Commission that there should be adequate accountability to Parliament and that hon. Members should be able to criticise and scrutinise. Will the system provide for policy to be decided in Brussels by the Commission and approved by the Council of Ministers, so that it filters down to be administered by the Intervention Board? If that is so, it


will be more necessary than ever for the board to be scrutinised in Parliament.

Will the board present an annual report, as certain other bodies do? Will one Minister be responsible for the board or will it be the responsiblity of several Ministers? There is a danger that we might create a bureaucratic institution. In Europe there has been criticism of the Community, and on previous occasions I have even quoted the German Commissioner, Professor Dahrendorf, who has criticised the growth of bureaucracy in the Community. There is always the danger that if a group of people is apart from the industry and apart from the hurly-burly of politics it can develop into a self-sufficient organisation with bureaucratic tendencies. That is one of my major criticisms of the Commission's handling of agriculture and it is one of my major criticisms of the CAP and its administration. Will the same thing happen in this country if we bestow on the board the powers contained in the Clause? Will there be consultations with industry?

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman criticises the administration of the CAP and the bureaucracy that attends it, but does he criticise the CAP itself and the principles which underlie it?

Mr. Peart: Of course I do. I have criticised it on previous occasions, and when I come to the debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" I shall deploy a wider argument, and I hope that the hon. Member will support me. I have found very few people in this country, except, perhaps, for the odd Minister or two, and very few people on the Continent who will defend the CAP. If I were allowed to reveal private conversations I would probably shock the Committee. Political leaders are very sceptical about the CAP. Herr Ertl, the German Minister of Agriculture, is on the record in commenting on the matter. The policy has developed in a way which is bad for European agriculture. I much prefer the system in this country, which many people on the Continent laud and approve.
If we are to have all this we have a right to examine what it means, and that is why the Minister should spell out the answers to my questions. In reply to our

Amendments I hope we shall hear an explanation on those matters which fundamentally affect the industry. I hope the Minister will say that there will be consultation with the industry and with consumer organisations.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: The Intervention Board would appear to be purely a servant of the Commission in Brussels. Surely the House and the Minister will have no influence on it because it will carry out instructions from Brussels, and it will make no difference whether it is composed of English-speaking Germans or English-speaking Englishmen.

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman should await the Minister's answer. I suspect that inevitably once Brussels has decided we shall have great difficulty in trying to alter the decision. However, the Minister must present his case. The nub of the argument concerns the fact that we are to allow a Brussels Commission, administrators in another country, to decide important aspects of policy affecting our country and our industry.
For these reasons, we are very critical of the Clause. That is why we probe it today and why we want adequate answers from the Government.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I support the Amendments. Anything that will help to protect the people affected by the Bill's workings once it has become an Act, if it ever does, must be good. Therefore, the Amendments of the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) have my wholehearted support, so far as they go. I understand that they would more or less at least have the effect of making the Intervention Board much more directly responsible to Parliament than it would be under the Clause. Anything that would lead to Parliament's being more responsible for what is done by some Ministers working slightly in the dark from the point of view of this country and Parliament over in Brussels, or wherever it may be, must be to the good.
We naturally rise with the best will to speak in support of something we think may help agriculture in this country and help Parliament to stand between the Commission and agriculture when it is necessary to defend British agriculture. But the heart grows a little weak when


we realise before the debate starts that there is no conceivable chance, however strongly the Minister may feel that Amendments should be included in the Bill, of his being allowed to accept them. That is the worst feature of all our debates on the Bill. It is not only discouraging but enervating. It destroys the whole purpose and will of Parliament. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is wagging his head, thus telling me that that is not so. I heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House rightly say the other day that there is provision for a Report stage. Of course there is. There is time for a Report stage. But it is rather odd that although Amendment after Amendment on legal matters and all sorts of other matters have been moved throughout the progress of the Committee Stage, by friends and opponents of the Government on both sides, the brains of hon. Members have never been sufficiently sensible to think up one Amendment which might be of some help to the Bill.
I may be proved wrong. I hope and pray that I shall be, and that from our stalwart Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food we shall this afternoon have a response to one or two of the serious Amendments, by his accepting something that will help to improve the Bill. I pray that that will happen in the Amendments before us, including that so ably moved by the right hon. Gentleman. If my right hon. Friend does that, he will go down in the history of the Bill—[Interruption.]—It may well be that my right hon. Friend is truly saying that if he should do any dreadful thing he will go down, but I hope that is not true. I trust that what is true is what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said the other day, that if the Government felt that they should accept an Amendment they would do so forthwith and that they are not worried about the possibility of having to have a Report stage.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): Will my hon. Friend indicate what merit there is in the Amendment which will improve the Bill? That is what we are trying to discuss. Many of the Amendments have had no relevance to the Bill but have

raised matters of general debate. They were just probing Amendments, as I imagine those before us are.

Mr. Fell: My right hon. and learned Friend has been here for the past three or four minutes, I believe, but in case he has not, I must tell him that I was only supporting the Amendments because I felt they would help to strengthen Parliament's position under the Bill. That is their aim.—[Interruption.]—My right hon. and learned Friend says "No". I have read the Amendments, and I hope he has. Obviously, he will consider most seriously whether any Amendment should be accepted. I do not believe it is true that no Amendment has been moved that would in any way assist the Bill. I still believe that the true answer is that my right hon. and learned Friend has his hands tied behind his back and dare not accept any Amendment because it would mean a Report stage. I hope that I am wrong, and that one of the Amendments we are considering, or at least other Amendments to this part of the Bill, will be accepted by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Gavin Strang: The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) has touched on the crucial issue in the whole debate.
Because we wish to get on, to have a full debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", and because we expect a full statement from the Minister this afternoon, I do not wish to take up much time now. I say that we are expecting a full statement because we know that for many months there has been a great deal of discussion with the organisations which may act as agents for the Intervention Board. It would be intolerable if we did not have a comprehensive statement, not just on how the Board will operate and on its composition but, perhaps more important, on the way in which the agencies acting on its behalf will conduct their affairs. I understand that the only concrete fact we have at this stage is that the Home-Grown Cereal Authority will be an agent acting for cereals. No official statements of any significance have been made about other agencies which will act for other commodities on behalf of the Board.
There are a number of specific points which it is important that the Minister should answer. Several of them were touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart). It is important that we should receive answers to five of the points to which I should like to refer.
The first refers to the first Amendment, and the fact that the Board will be in the charge of a Government Department. This Board does not have to be in the charge of a Government Department. It could be more autonomous, although paid for out of public funds. For the right hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest that these Amendments are simply probing and not meant to be taken seriously is nonsense.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Rippon: I never suggested that they were not to be taken seriously. Many Amendments have raised important points which we have answered; we have explained the issues. Many have been simply probing Amendments. I was suggesting that this group could only be regarded as designed to initiate a general discussion.

Mr. Strang: That is a fair point, but we should like to see some of these Amendments written in, because they would improve the Bill.
Second, I hope that the Minister will elaborate on the functions of this Board. In some countries, these intervention boards have very wide functions which are not related to agricultural policy. It is true that this Bill says that the Board will have functions in relation to the CAP, but any aspect of agricultural policy is connected with the CAP. Therefore, underneath this Board there could be all the civil servants who are working on any agricultural policy. Is that what the Minister envisages? How precisely will this Board slot into the Ministry?
My third point is absolutely crucial. Will the Minister spell out the relationship of the Board with the Ministry and with the Commission? This will be a very complicated relationship. The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) implied that the Board would simply be the agent of the Commission and would respond to its directives. This Board will of course force

up prices, ensure that the consumer does not get the benefit of a production surplus and collect the levies. It will be the agent of the most abominable part of the whole Common Market exercise.

Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: Is the hon. Gentleman not overlooking the fact that the Amendment would remove the Board from the control of the Ministry and the Minister from the obligation to answer in Parliament? Surely it would destroy parliamentary control over the Board's activities.

Mr. Strang: No, the hon. Member is wrong. Even if all these Amendments were accepted, the Minister would still appoint all the members of the Board and their salaries would come from the Treasury. We can ask questions about other Government agencies. An extreme example is the Medical Research Council. Rothschild implied that it was not responsible to Parliament, but in fact we can ask questions about it.
It is important, from the point of view of Labour Party policy towards the Common Market, that this Intervention Board should be appointed by a British Minister and its salaries paid by the Treasury. If, by the time we have a Labour Government, we are in the Common Market, this will be a very important consideration when that Government tell the Commission that we cannot accept the present negotiated terms over the CAP.
Fourth, on the composition of the Board, the Amendments seek to ensure that there will be representatives of consumers, producers and the workers in the industry. It is quite reasonable that workers in agriculture—the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers and to some extent the Transport and General Workers'Union—should have at least one representative on the Board. That is what the Labour Government provided when they set up organisations such as the Meat and Livestock Commission.
My fifth point relates to the consultations that the Minister is required to have when issuing directives to the Board, perhaps enlarging on its functions. Under the Bill, the Minister will be obliged to consult any body created by statutory provision. That seems a restricting type of legislation. After all, I presume that all the unions will be consulted, although


they are not created by statutory provision. I am not sure whether the producer marketing organisations could be defined as created by statutory provision. I doubt it.
I hope that we shall have some assurance, particularly as it appears that we are not to be allowed to change the Bill in any way, that the consultation will take place not just with bodies created by statutory provision but with all organisations. It is much more important that it should take place with other bodies who are not in the Minister's pocket, which to some extent is the implication of the phrase "created by statutory provision".

Mr. Dennis Walters: The right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) emphasised the importance of this Clause, on which we would all agree. He rightly said that it is the key to the common agricultural policy, which he criticised. He also said that some of his hon. Friends had criticised it even more, and that he could not tell the Committee some of the remarks made to him in private about it.

Mr. Peart: I said that political leaders in Europe had spoken in these terms, not necessarily my hon. Friends.

Mr. Walters: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would agree that some of his colleagues have been equally outspoken about it. In that connection, it is important to realise, when we are discussing this, that, although it is not possible to renegotiate the CAP before entry, once we are members, the problems facing agriculture, and therefore the British agriculture, will be open to adaptations and alterations—as indeed they clearly have been in the Community up till now. Should intolerable situations arise adversely affecting a particular member—obviously, we are here especially concerned that they might adversely affect us—it would be possible to ensure that just and reasonable solutions were found.
It has never been the policy of the Community to penalise a particular member. It would not be in the interests of the Community to do so; moreover it would not be possible and it would not work. If the existing system is not capable of meeting the requirements of members it can be altered and adapted.
Although I agree that the common agricultural policy is open to criticism, and that it will no doubt have to be changed in some important respects, its more passionate critics have consistently failed to recognise, that it is a policy of protection aimed at fulfilling social as well as economic functions. The system is not very different from protection of a declining industry which the Opposition so consistently support and advocate. A policy which has such a clear social content should, at least to some extent, I should have thought, commend itself to right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
Moreover, a study of the Mansholt plan shows that the plan is aimed at reducing the uneconomic areas of production and the uneconomic employment of agricultural labour and to do so gradually so as to cause as little social harm and disruption as possible. Once we are full members of the Community we shall be able effectively to stand up for our own special agricultural interests and influence the whole agricultural policy of the Community. This is a desirable aim to which Britain can make a major contribution. I entirely agree that British agriculture is outstandingly successful and has much to show to European agriculture.
As my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) has pointed out, the effect of Amendment No. 263 is to remove from the Minister direct accountability to Parliament for the normal routine activities of the employees of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce. The Community regulations require some form of organisation to be designated to carry out intervention functions, and experience has repeatedly shown that it is desirable to centralise such functions. Since the final responsibility remains with the Government, provision should be made for accounting to Parliament, and the Amendment therefore has a precisely contrary effect to the wish of hon. Gentlemen opposite to have more parliamentary scrutiny. The Amendment is unnecessary and undesirable.

5.15 p.m.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: I was interested and encouraged to hear the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) describe the


Amendments as probing Amendments. I hope that when he has received the perfectly satisfactory answer he can expect from my right hon. and learned Friend he will withdraw them. Taken at their face value, I would describe them as wrecking Amendments.

Sir Ronald Russell: Does my hon. Friend describe Amendment 264 as a wrecking Amendment? It seems to be grammatically desirable if not essential.

Sir F. Maclean: I am talking of the whole group of Amendments, including the one we are discussing. Taken together, their effect is to make the Intervention Board unworkable and completely out of control. The effect of Amendment No. 263 is to remove from the Minister accountability to Parliament which, by any standards, is clearly undesirable. I am led to the conclusion that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to defeat this whole aspect of the Bill, and that view will no doubt be confirmed when we discuss the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".
The right hon. Member for Workington said nothing about Labour Party policy in this respect or, for that matter, the policy of the Labour Government. Am I wrong in thinking that the Labour Government were prepared to accept the common agricultural policy? If so the attitude of the Opposition now is contradictory.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that at the 1969 Labour Party conference Lord George-Brown made it absolutely clear on behalf of the National Executive—despite his statements since then—that the common agricultural policy was one of the many matters on which the Government had definite reservations and that the whole question would have to be negotiated before our entry into the Common Market?

Sir F. Maclean: That was in 1969. Has not Lord George-Brown since made it clear that he considers the terms negotiated by my right hon. and learned Friend to be perfectly satisfactory and as good as or better than any terms which any Government were likely to get?

Mr. Douglas Jay: What Lord George-Brown may have said since are his personal views. What he said in 1969 and what my hon. Friend quoted was a statement of the position of the Government in 1967 when the application was made, and about that there is no doubt.

Sir F. Maclean: I have come to the end of my speech, but if I might interrupt an interrupter, there is a difference between making reservations about the common agricultural policy and trying to throw it out altogether.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) since I am sure they will be fully dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester. Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris).
I wish to draw attention to Amendment No. 441 which I regard as the most important of this group of 13 Amendments. It seeks to delete certain words from paragraph (a), the use of which in this legislation is quite extraordinary. They give the Minister power to give written direction to any statutory body engaged in agriculture—which must cover all marketing boards, such as the Home Grown Cereals Board and the Meat and Livestock Commission—if its activities are considered to be prejudicial.
I wish to ask a specific question about this power. Do Ministers mean that merely by sending a letter to a marketing board telling the Board that a particular function exercised by it is unacceptable to the European authorities they can ensure that that marketing board will cease to operate its statutory function in that respect? If that is the intention of this monstrous provision, I sincerely hope that the Committee will unanimously support this Amendment.
The provision as drafted would create an appalling situation in view of the assurances which the House has been given about negotiations to enable the position of marketing boards to be safeguarded. If the words to which I have drawn attention are necessary for this purpose, I feel that they should be resisted. If there is to be any change in the functions and powers of marketing boards, it should be a matter for Par-


liament to consider and decide, not for Ministers to conclude merely by sending a letter.

Mr. Farr: I should like to deal with the contents of some of the grouped Amendments, some of which are good and others bad. First, I wish to refer to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) who made a short and interesting speech, though I did not agree with very much of it. He praised the Mansholt plan and said what a wonderful opportunity would be afforded to the British farmers when we went into Europe. He thought we would then have the chance to enjoy some of the benefits which would be bestowed by that plan on the British farming industry. I like and respect my hon. Friend, but I must say that his views on this subject are slightly misguided. I believe that the Mansholt plan, so far as it is intended to be implemented in this country, will be nothing but a disaster for British farming.
One of the objects of the Mansholt plan is to try to make agriculture more efficient, and I am speaking in the context of a Europe either representing the present Six or the enlarged Ten. There are to be measures to amalgamate farms, to give big cash handouts to those which want to get out of the business, and to try to bring up farms to a more efficient acreage. This is all very laudable, but how will it help us in this country? We shall be the suckers who will provide most of the money to motivate the Mansholt plan in the years that lie ahead, while European farmers struggle to catch up to the standards enjoyed by our British farms today. For a decade or two we are likely to mark time while they catch up at our expense.
There is no doubt that there is a very big gap between farmers in this country and farmers in some of the countries of the Six. It has already been said in this debate that our farmers are extremely efficient. The size of our farms is four to five times that of the average farm size in the Six. The yield per acre in this country is well ahead in every commodity compared with other nations in the Six. If we take other yardsticks, such as the size of dairy herds, again we in this country are many years ahead of the continent. I can see nothing but frustration and disappointment for British farming if we

go into Europe and the Mansholt plan is applied here.
I welcome some of the remarks by the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), and the whole Committee will agree with him that British agriculture flourished as a result of the 1947 and 1957 Agriculture Acts. We on this side of the Committee recognise that times have changed, and whether or not we enter the Common Market we feel that my right hon. Friend was right to initiate a change from the old methods of support. I know that the Committee will wish to pay tribute to a system which in the immediate post-war years, and until five or 10 years ago, provided a system of agriculture in this country which was the envy of many other countries in the world.

Mr. Strang: It still is.

Mr. Farr: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it still is the envy of the world. The system of agriculture has helped to put us in a very superior position in terms of efficiency compared with our counterparts in the Six. We must all agree with the right hon. Member for Workington that those two Acts played a fundamental rôle in advancing British agriculture.
We must also recognise that, as we debate Clause 6 and the provisions relating to the Intervention Board, we are now at a watershed in British history. As soon as the Bill is on the Statute Book and becomes law, there will be a complete change of direction in British policy. For many years we have enjoyed a system which has benefited British housewives who have had a wide choice of the cheapest foods in the world. It has also helped our Commonwealth producers because they have sent foodstuffs to this country at times when they had peak supplies and when we had low supplies. This system in the past has worked very well in harmony with our own agricultural output. Imports from parts of the Commonwealth in certain respects have been safeguarded by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In terms of New Zealand dairy products and the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement he has made certain arrangements which I regard as of a temporary and uncertain nature.
The Committee will agree that, although we shall doubtless continue to receive a certain amount of sugar from the developing countries of the Commonwealth, and shall continue for a few years to obtain a diminishing amount annually of dairy produce from New Zealand, a whole change of emphasis will take place with the passing of Clause 6. In future when certain foods are in short supply in this country we shall find that they are met, not by Commonwealth producers in terms of low-priced food but, instead, by high-priced products from continental farmers. This is a situation we shall face and is the price the Government are prepared to pay; they recognise that a price has to be paid and have decided to pay it. But there are many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who sincerely believe that in terms of this request, coupled with the many other things which we shall be called upon to fulfil and the obligations into which we shall be asked to enter, the price is altogether too high.
Some of our present Commonwealth suppliers will be phased out completely. For example, there will be nearly 300,000 tons of surplus Australian sugar kicking round the world in 1974 which formerly would have come to this country at cheap prices under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. The effect of that will be to wreck the delicate balance and structure of the free world sugar market. Many other Commonwealth commodities which today come to this country will be terminated fairly rapidly. I have in mind dried fruits and certain other basic commodities.
5.30 p.m.
Turning to the group of Amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Workington, I wish to refer especially to No. 271. That Amendment would make a real improvement, since it proposes the inclusion of representatives of consumer interests and of producers on the Intervention Board. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will deal with this proposal. It is very important that some of the detailed information needed by the Committee about the workings of the Intervention Board should be made available.
Amendment No. 271 requires consumer and producer interests to be represented

on the Intervention Board. Certainly I should expect to see producer representatives, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will set my mind at rest in that respect. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will say that representatives of the National Farmers Union or some other suitable representatives of agricultural producers will be represented on the Board. Indeed, without them the Board could not really do its job.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will give the Committee some details of how the Intervention Board is to work—

Mr. Walters: But does not Amendment No. 263 specifically remove direct accountability from the Minister to Parliament? How does my hon. Friend feel that that would be helpful?

Mr. Farr: I said earlier that some of the Amendments were good but that some were not so good. That is one that I regard as pointless. Amendment No. 263 proposes to leave out the words
in charge of a government department
However, the right hon. Member for Workington replaces it with nothing. If the Amendment is accepted we shall have a rudderless and pilotless Intervention Board which will do more damage than if it were in the charge of the Government Department concerned. It is an Amendment with which I do not altogether agree.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West): Does not my hon. Friend feel that the result would still be achieved by the words "responsible to the Ministers" in lines 2 and 3 of subsection (1)?

Mr. Farr: I am afraid that I have enough difficulty in deploying my own case without trying to explain to the Committee the reasons why the right hon. Member for Workington has tabled his Amendment. If a right hon. or hon. Member opposite winds up the debate, perhaps that point will be dealt with. I could have a good guess at the reason, but probably I should be out of order if I tried.
There are a number of answers that the agricultural industry must have about the workings of the Intervention Board. I hope that my right hon. Friend the


Minister will let us have one or two of them today. I hope, for example, that we shall be told whether the Intervention Board will act directly in respect of some commodities and whether in respect of certain other commodities there will be statutory bodies acting for it. If every commodity is to have a statutory body in charge of it, again controlled by the Intervention Board, what are those statutory bodies to be? One can envisage the statutory body likely to be chosen in respect of certain commodities. In respect of cereals, for example, I imagine that it is likely to be the Home Grown Cereals Authority. In the case of meat, it might be the Meat and Livestock Commission. However, we are guessing.
I remind my right hon. Friend that we have only seven months before the whole system has to be working, assuming that we go into Europe. The situation is complicated enough as it is without it suddenly being sprung upon the industry without forewarning of the arrangements that my right hon. Friend proposes to make.
Who will be responsible, for instance, in respect of cereals, for the largely detailed duties of denaturing corn? Will that be done by the Intervention Board, will it be done by a statutory body authorised by the Board, or is my right hon. Friend considering, as I understand may be the case, employing certain private contractors authorised by the Board to do the denaturing for him?

Mr. Robert Hicks: For the purposes of clarification on this point, perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. While I agree with him that we all require more details, perhaps I might remind him that on 9th May, 1972, in a Written Answer certain details were given to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison). Referring to the Agricultural Ministers, my hon. Friend the Minister of State said:
…they have invited the Home Grown Cereals Authority under the intervention system applicable to cereals to undertake, as executive agents of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, functions relating to denaturing, support buying, storage and selling, and information about prices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1970; Vol. 836, c. 323.]

We have had some guidelines, though I agree that we are looking for more.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. I had not forgotten it. But I was not aware that the Home Grown Cereals Authority had accepted the burden placed upon it by the Minister. I was not aware that my right hon. Friend had yet been able to publish a reply to my request of about six weeks ago relating to where the area of greatest cereal deficiency will be in an enlarged Ten. At the moment it is Duisburg, in the Six. Will it remain Duisburg in the enlarged Ten, or will it be Liverpool, Sligo or somewhere else? We must know.
Obviously I do not expect full details from my right hon. Friend today but I hope that he will also be able to give the Committee an idea of where the principal marketing centres in this country are likely to be. I understand that there will be about 10 of them. Where will they be? Can my right hon. Friend announce details at a fairly early date?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I must draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that there has been a very wide-ranging debate on these matters. We are now straying into details which go far beyond them.

Mr. Farr: With respect, I was told by my right hon. Friend that he would give me answers to these questions when we debated Clause 6.

The First Deputy Chairman: That is precisely what I am saying to the Committee.

Mr. Farr: I was, in any case, about to continue, but I thought that it would be of extreme interest to everybody to know just where this area of greatest cereal deficiency would be. This is a matter of great importance.
I want to find out from the Minister whether the Intervention Board will operate directly in some fields without a statutory intervention authority, or whether, for every commodity, it will appoint a statutory intervention authority to act on its behalf and simply enjoy the position of being a parent board in charge of a number of statutory bodies.
I welcome some of the Amendments—some warmly, and some quite warmly—and some not at all. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give thought to some of the matters that I have raised. Whether or not I agree with the policy of going into Europe—and I do not—I have raised matters to which we should like answers at an early date.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), I do not think that he has been meeting the same farmers that I have met during the last two or three years. I find that the agriculture community has no affection for free imports of new potatoes from Cyprus, and it will be a pleasure to have some sort of tariff mounted against them. We have seen the almost pig-headed refusal of the New Zealand Government to rephase the arrival of the New Zealand lamb crop in this country, and nothing short of a substantial tariff will help our farmers.
The right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) gave us perhaps one of the most conservative speeches that we have heard in the Committee for a long time. I think that most people interested in agriculture have grown out of this great affection for the 1947 Agriculture Act. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the end of a system which had worked well. That system was creaking and on the point of breaking down by the time standard quantities were introduced, and whether or not we are involved in the CAP the system would have had to have been changed. The farming community has suffered from the right hon. Gentleman's failure to rethink another system of agricultural support during the period that he was in office. I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will not accept the Amendment, because I hope that there will not be too much political interference with the Intervention Board once it is set up.
The experience of the last two weeks shows a most distressing tendency on the part of Ministers and the Government to run away from the consequences of the CAP once it starts to bite. We have seen the effect of a substantial rise in beef prices. We have seen the chance of a decent return to farmers who have invested in beef.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: I feel sure that my hon. Friend would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that it is only by achieving these higher farm gate prices to which he refers that there is the remotest possibility of farmers being able to pay the higher wages which many hon. Members on this side of the Committee and, I should have thought, on the benches opposite, feel are deserved by the agricultural workers.

Mr. Kimball: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree with him.
I should like to deal with this question of interference in the Intervention Board once it starts to bite. Those who have been trying to export to the Six during the last few years have found it intolerable that even when permission has been given to send a load of lambs from, say, Scotland to France, the tariff arrangements have been changed overnight. I thought it was a distressing tendency when my right hon. Friend started to talk about being able overnight to alter the restrictions on the amount of cows and beef going from this country to the Continent, when the sort of action which the Six have been taking over the last few years has made trading with them so difficult. One of the objects of the CAP is to get rid of this kind of difficulty.
From a farming point of view, for the first time in a long period we have seen four years of progressively rising agricultural prices to the farmer, and progressive expansion and prosperity. We are realistic in realising that after 1976 it is unlikely that the CAP will be renegotiated at the present high level of prices which Europe enjoys. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) that within this policy there is an important social consideration.
I am sorry that the countries in Europe are talking about a further reduction in the number of people employed on the land. One of the advantages to Great Britain of the present high level of food prices is a tailing off of the tendency for people to leave the land, an ending over a short period of the depressing tendency for farms to amalgamate and


for fewer people to get their living from the countryside, because that is bad for this country and is not something which I support and want to see continue.
I should like to see a level of food prices sufficient to ensure a prosperous and well-populated countryside, and it is distressing that the Common Market countries are talking about reducing the number of people employed in the countryside. I had hoped that the effect of the CAP would be to retain more people in the English countryside having a prosperous and satisfactory existence. I hope that we shall do everything that we can to rectify that tendency.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I believe that to support the Clause is to condone the CAP, a European policy for agriculture which I believe is internationally disruptive. It offends against the essential eventual aim of world free trade in food, it is a selfish assault against the under-developed world, it is a guarantee for the creation of trading blocs, and it is a menace to the teetering capitalist economies of the West.

Mr. Charles Morrison: rose—

Mr. Fraser: I shall not give way. That is merely an introduction to my remarks. I do not want to get out of order. I want to deal with the Amendment relating to the Intervention Board, and my first suggestion is that as the proceeds of much of this will be in the form of a levy for Europe I trust that Europe will pay the salaries of those engaged in the Board, which would be an advantage to the British taxpayer.
Dealing with the setting up of the Intervention Board in this country, how will it be arranged that the slow movement upwards of our agricultural prices and therefore food prices at the end, which, according to the Government, will not increase at a rate of more than 2½ per cent. per year is harmoniously organised? That is that the levies, and so on, are so worked out that over this five-year period there is a harmonisation policy which does not upset the Government's promised norm.
Unless there is a harmonisation policy of considerable complication, unless there is intervention at a quite specific and different rate from Europe we shall see

happening what has happened this spring over the movement of meat prices with the European meat price being as high as £22 a hundredweight and our own because of the reduction of the common external tariff moving upwards to hit, on some occasions in the market, a price as high as £18.
Therefore there has to be a complicated system, which I hope the Minister will explain, so as to regulate the movement of the common external tariff and to ensure that the price of food for the consumer in this country does not increase by more than the 2½ per cent. a year to which the Government are totally pledged. My right hon. Friend said the other day not 2½ per cent. but 2 per cent. Let us keep it at 2½ per cent. and let him off the other ½ per cent.
The other point I wish to raise is how the Intervention Board will act on certain agricultural products not produced here. This applies especially to maize. The European price of maize, quoted from the agricultural paper produced by the NFU, is just over £40 per ton. The world price, quoted in this morning's Financial Times is £22 per ton. That is the difference, and this difference will affect some of my farming friends in my constituency. I hope that the Minister is aware that the latest forecast is that for 1972–73 the maize target price in Europe will increase by a further 3·2 per cent. Next year we shall be dealing with a European maize price of £42 per ton while the world price is rapidly falling. How will this affect people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) who are so keen on attacking New Zealanders? How will his farmers feel when they have to pay these prices for their feeding stuffs?
Could I refer to another area in which you, Miss Harvie Anderson, and I are both involved, in different capacities, myself as a consumer and you as someone representing an area where the good stuff is produced? I am talking about whisky, our biggest export, earning us £100 million a year. I am not an expert on how whisky is made but I am an expert on how it is consumed. Let me remind the Committee that whisky nowadays is not made of barley; it is made largely of maize which is not grown here. What will the Intervention Board do about the price of maize for the British


whisky manufacturer and the British farmer feeding his livestock? We want to know a great deal about this.
I turn to deal with the change which it is suggested will be made in the common agricultural policy over the next few years. It is quite clear that M. Pompidou fought the referendum on the basis that there would be no change in the common agricultural policy. Could I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough about the movement of people back to the land? There may be a few moving back to the land in this country, but let us suppose there were a change in Europe of this kind; let us suppose that Europe moved on to the same sort of relationship of men to the acre as ourselves.
This would mean that in West Germany 1½ million people would immediately be put on to the labour market. Will they do that? Do we think they are half-wits? Do we think Herr Dr. Strauss in Bavaria will come forward and say, "Let us change the agricultural policy; let us have one million unemployed"? Hon. Members should be more familiar with European history. What we are concerned with in South Germany are the Hitler reforms, and they were interesting reforms, of 1934, 1935 and 1936. Then it was agreed that there should be a strong peasant economy in Germany. That is why there are those holdings of about 26 acres average. Do we think that will change? Not at all. My right hon. Friends say that once we get in, Europe will be like us, and it will follow the agricultural policy we have followed.
What would happen in Italy if it adopted the sort of agricultural relationship we have with men per acre? There would be three million more unemployed. Do we see Signor Colombo doing this? This is Cloud Cuckoo Land ill-digested. No one who thinks this, especially the Minister, has done his homework. Such people do not know or understand the problems of Europe. Europe depends on a strong peasant economy, and those peasant communities are important political factors in any decision. Do we imagine for one moment that my right hon. Friend, however brilliant an agrono-

mist he may be, however expert he may be as an agriculturalist, however splendid he may be as a farm manager, when he gets into European will be able to change anything? Not on your ruddy Nelly!

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): Having listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) I feel that I had better intervene quickly. I hope that my intervention at this stage will not be construed by any member of the Committee as suggesting that I wish to bring the debate to an end. I thought, as we have already had a number of questions asked and as I regard this as an important debate to which there are a number of detailed replies, that hon. Members on both sides would think it convenient for me to intervene now.
By way of introduction may I say that we should all like to pay tribute to the work done under the 1947 and 1957 Acts. For many years they served the farming industry of this country and the consumers extremely well. Although from time to time there were doubts about the changes made, and great doubts at the time whether the 1957 Act would work, the fact is that they did work pretty well. It has only been in the last few years that there have been movements away from them. Those movements were going on before this Government came into office although they have perhaps accelerated over the last two years or so.
May I say to my right hon. Friend, who quite rightly has accused me of not doing my homework since I accused him of the same thing the other day, that what he has to recognise is that with a commodity such as meat or butter we are outside the Community now, on our own with the rest of the world to trade with, but are finding that prices in the rest of the world have risen extremely sharply and that there is nothing we can do about it. This has happened to us while we are outside the Community and it is beyond our control. This is exactly what has happened. I do not necessarily regard my right hon. Friend's views about what will happen when we go into Europe as making any great difference from that point of view.

[Mr. JOHN BREWIS in the Chair]

6.0 p.m.

I find it rather extraordinary that the Opposition should criticise the policy outlined in the Clause in the way they have. In many respects it bears a fairly close resemblance to the sort of commodity commission approach which was so favoured by the Opposition at one time, and this policy, for the first time, gives power to a governmental body to intervene on the market in order to hold the price at a pre-defined level. I should have thought that this was something that had, in past years, found a good deal of acceptance by the Opposition. [Interruption.] One of my hon. Friends says "Good Socialist principle." That is what I can never understand about the Opposition. I understand my right hon. and hon. Friends rather more. But the Opposition have had Dr. Mansholt, who is a leading Socialist, forming the agricultural and other policies for a long while.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: What about Lord Robens?

Mr. Prior: I should like to indicate in some detail how we see the intervention body working. On Second Reading I said that I would try to give some idea of the Board's functions on this occasion.
The Board will have almost entirely executive functions. It will be dealing with large sums of money and affecting the activities of a great many people up and down the country. Therefore, we considered that this was a sufficient reason for the organisation to be set up as a Government Department directly responsible to Ministers who will be answerable to Parliament for its actions. Although its operations will be largely financed by the Community—I shall come later to this point—we think it essential for the organisation to be accountable to Parliament; for its expenditure to be subject to the oversight of the Comptroller and Auditor General and its administration—after the passage of the necessary Order in Council under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, 1967—to be subject to the oversight of the Ombudsman.

Mr. Neil Marten: Would it, therefore, be within the remit of the

Expenditure Committee to inquire into not only the Board but also the whole financing of the Board's work, not only in this country but also elsewhere?

Mr. Prior: No. I should not have thought so, because that would involve policy decisions. For policy decisions it is the Minister and the Ministry who will retain responsibility. On matters of policy the Minister is answerable, as he is at present; for matters of the executive responsibilities of the Board, the Board is answerable. If I may continue, I think that this will become clearer to my hon. Friend.
It is thus for reasons of financial and administrative accountability for the very large sums involved that we are convinced that the main intervention agency needs to be a Government Department and, for a number of reasons, we think that it should be a new and distinct Department. First, it seems right to make a clear distinction between the purely executive functions under the common agricultural policy which will be entrusted to the Board and the policy functions which will be carried out by the existing agricultural Departments working through the various bodies in Brussels.

Mr. Peart: Is it to be a completely separate Government Department?

Mr. Prior: A completely separate Government Department. I suppose that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will become the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries, Food and Intervention. That, I presume, is the full technical detail of this.
It will still be the job of the Minister, through policy, to deal with the management committees in Brussels, which in turn deal with the day-to-day application of the EEC system for each commodity. The representation of the United Kingdom on these committees will be by officials but we certainly intend to bring trade interests into the closest possible consultation on the many issues involved. I want to stress this because I know that the trade from time to time feels that it has a particular expertise which will be needed and can be of great value both to the officials and to the country. I am determined to see that the trade has every opportunity to put its views


to my officials and, where necessary, to accompany my officials to Brussels when they go there to attend the management committees.
Secondly, there is the simple practical point that intervention must be operated on a uniform basis throughout the United Kingdom and it is, therefore, better to have a single body for the whole country than to work through the separate agricultural Departments as they now are.
Thirdly, a separate Department allows us to introduce a board system which has the great advantage of allowing people to be appointed who are knowledgeable in the commercial and semi-commercial fields to which the common agricultural policy extends.
We are thinking in terms of a fairly small Board of men of experience and knowledge, with a chief executive who will act as accounting officer and will be in charge of the running of the Department. He will be a civil servant. The members of the Board will not necessarily be civil servants, but the chief executive will be.
We do not think that it would be wise to restrict appointments to men from particular fields of work or to make the members in any sense representatives of particular interests. It is not intended that the Board's members, either individually or collectively, should exercise direct executive functions within the fields of activity of the chief executive. But they will bring wide experience in commercial fields to bear on the Department's operations and dealings with the interests concerned within the discretion which the EEC regulations leave us. They will also be able to consider individual cases where hardship or injustice might arise.
We must ensure that the arrangements are such that the Board has the most effective method of work possible and can meet, within its sphere of operation, the needs of traders and producers. We therefore expect the Board to give a high priority to the closest contact with the trade and industry and to building up an effective system of consultation, both formal and informal, with all the interests concerned in all parts of the United Kingdom on its methods of operation. As it is a Board for the United Kingdom as a whole, we have to consider representation from various parts

of the United Kingdom, and this we are doing.

Sir F. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend explain how this will operate in Scotland and what relationship there will be with the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Prior: The Board will be under my control. I assure my hon. Friend that it will have a representative from Scotland on it. It will have a regional office in Scotland. But I should like to come to the details a little later.

Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrew, West): Perhaps I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman. Did he say that he would return later precisely to this point?

Mr. Prior: If I did not answer the point the hon. Gentleman has in mind, perhaps he will ask me about it a little later when I come to it.
I should expect the Board to operate a series of advisory committees covering the main commodities and the main functions of the Board. This will enable the Board to benefit from a wide range of experience and will enable the trade and all the other interests concerned to be kept in close touch with the operation of the support system—which will clearly be of more direct concern to more people and more interests than the present system. There will, of course, be close links between the Board's consultations with the trade and those of the agricultural Departments on the work of the EEC management committees.
At this stage I shall deal briefly with why the Board is to be a body corporate, which is the subject of one of the Amendments which we have been discussing. It is essential to the Board to have sufficient status to carry out its assigned functions, and in setting up a new Government Department it is modern practice to provide for this by conferring corporate status on either the Department or the Minister in charge of it, making possible the use of a corporate seal for deeds and other instruments and facilitating land transactions.
There is no advantage of any kind in not giving the Board the status of a body corporate, but without such status it would be impossible for the Board to hold an interest in land except through


trustees, which would be an unacceptable alternative. Similarly, it is necessary to exclude restrictions on its corporate capacity which might operate to the disadvantage of parties with which it makes contracts. The constitution of the Board will be covered in more detail in an Order in Council which will be laid before the House as soon as possible after the Bill has received the Royal Assent.

Mr. Buchan: On the earlier point about the relationship between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland, I understand that at present there is parity. There are two Ministers, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who are each in charge of an Agriculture Department. It is true that in respect of food the Minister of Agriculture alone is responsible. In terms of agriculture, the Secretary of State for Scotland has parity in the Cabinet and Government administration. If what is now being described is an all-powerful body, which to a large extent will administer outside instructions in Britain reflecting Common Market attitudes towards Britain and Scotland is to be relegated to a regional office, the Minister can expect hell about it.

Mr. Prior: Perhaps I misled the House. However, as normally happens the Ministry of Agriculture takes the lead in these matters. The relationship between the Secretary of State for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and myself is, that we are all concerned with the Board in the same way as we are concerned all together now with the other operations of the Ministery and its functions. So the Board will be not just responsible to me alone; it will also be responsible to the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peart: The Minister mentioned that there would be a regional office in Scotland. Are there any regional offices in Wales and, if so, what are their locations in England?

Mr. Prior: I will come to that matter fully a little later.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I am sorry to interrupt on

this point, but it is of crucial importance to Scotland. Will the Minister explain how Members' constituency interests can be handled within the new structure? Can we address a question to the Secretary of State for Scotland, as we do now, on agricultural matters, or will there be a dual relationship of a kind which we have never had before?

Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend will be able to address his questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland on agricultural matters relating to the Intervention Board as he does now. The relationship is not changed in any way in that respect.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: From the Scottish point of view, the price of maize is well below the European price. Will the Intervention Board issue a special rate to push up the price of maize to the consumer from £22, which is the present world price, to a price which I calculate by 1978 will be about £50 in Europe? How will this be done? Who will tell the whisky distiller "Your maize will cost you £48"?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Prior: I will later give a specific example of how intervention works. That will then explain the problem which my right hon. Friend has raised.
I was going to deal with the question of affirmative Resolutions. The first Amendment on this subject, Amendment No. 267, would have the effect of removing the Board from the control of Ministers. I have already explained fully why we think it is necessary that the Board should exercise its functions—in the same way as any other Government Department—directly under the control of the Ministers responsible. The Board's responsibility to the Agricultural Ministers must be made clear in the legislation. It will be responsible to Parliament through the answerable Ministers in the same way as any other Government Department.
On the second Amendment, which seeks to replace the Order in Council procedure for dealing with the details of the constitution, membership and the organisation of the Board by Resolutions of both Houses, I should emphasise that the order would not include matters of policy but would be largely confined to matters of administrative detail. Resolutions of Parliament would not be the


natural vehicle for making constitutional provisions of this kind. An Order in Council is the appropriate instrument for this purpose.
I have been asked about the other functions which could be entrusted to the Board and the powers which we have given to the Board. This is a necessary provision since, while the main function of the Board will be "in connection with" the carrying out of the obligations of the United Kingdom under the common agricultural policy, it is sensible to make provision for the Board to be able to undertake functions which will not be strictly in connection with the common agricultural policy but will facilitate the carrying out of our obligations.
In the same way, there are within the EEC regulations functions which are permissive and do not impose an obligation on member States. It might be sensible on some occasions to give the relevant permissive functions to the Board. We cannot be sure what the extent of functions of this sort will be in the future development of the CAP.
The power is thus largely a precautionary one for the future, but an example of where it might need to be used would be in the provision of centralised grain storage for intervention-bought cereals. There is no obligation to make such provision, but there might be circumstances in which the Board might consider that it would streamline its intervention-buying to the benefit of all concerned.
The conferring of this type of function would be by Order in Council under Clause 2(2). It would consequently be open to parliamentary scrutiny. There would be no question of the Board being directed to carry out any executive functions entirely outside the scope of the CAP. As I said on Second Reading, the word "intervention" in the context of EEC support covers a multitude of activities, and the great bulk of these, apart from the collection of import levies, which will be a matter for customs, will be carried out by the Board.
One main area of work for the Board will be the provision of export restitution on goods being exported to third countries.
I should say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone—I will come to the question of maize later

—that one of the things which will happen is that there will be an export restitution available for alcohol exports to compensate for any increase in the price of maize, as it were, coming into this country. That is part of the restitution process.

Mr. Marten: Over and above world prices?

Mr. Prior: I will come to that matter in a moment and put it in the right context.
Export restitution, or export refunds, are granted to cover the difference between Community prices for agricultural produce and world prices, and thus allow manufactured products to be exported at competitive prices. For example, if one is exporting goods and importing goods at a higher price because of the operation of the levy, one has to sell one's exports in competition with the rest of the world at world prices. There is the import restitution to cover the difference between the two. Community prices are changed at short notice, so it is extremely important to have an efficient paying organisation and a suitable means of getting price information quickly to the trade. Increasingly large sums of money will be involved here, and it will be a major and important area of work of considerable technicality, if not particularly glamorous.
There is also provision for the payment of various types of production subsidy and subsidies for denaturing products, particularly wheat. Denaturing is a system whereby in order to take wheat off the market a subsidy is paid on it if it is used for animal feed. In order to ensure that the wheat is not subsequently used for human consumption it has to be "denatured" by the addition of a dye or fish-oil or it has to be directly incorporated into animal feeding stuffs in controlled conditions. [Interruption.] It is what we do for potatoes at the moment.
Finally, there is support buying and storage of commodities to prevent or diminish market fluctuations and to maintain farmers' returns. A price level is established at which the intervention agencies will accept the commodity concerned for intervention-buying. As the price rises again, as a result of intervention-buying and the levies working, the


agency will stop buying the commodity for intervention and start to sell it at a higher price, if possible. All these actions take place at predetermined price levels. All this means that producers and groups of producers will have to take rather more active decisions in the EEC support system. They will have to decide for instance, whether they want their wheat denatured or want to offer produce for intervention buying. Of course, in the early part of the transition period, while they are getting used to the new system, guaranteed prices, as we know them now, will continue to operate.

Mr. Peart: The Minister mentioned support buying of various commodities for which the organisation will be responsible. Will that apply to meat commodities?

Mr. Prior: I am coming to that point. However, it certainly would apply to meat commodities.
It is important to understand that under the EEC support system the Board will not be performing an active rôle in commodity markets. It will not be intervening when, in its commercial judgment, the market is weakening. Its buying function is essentially a passive one. It will be ready to accept parcels of commodities of a pre-determined size at a pre-determined price when the market price falls to a level at which buying is authorised by the Community system.
There is, of course, a system for cereals called "Intervention B" under which a member State can be authorised to operate intervention at a special level for a limited time to meet special market difficulties. But the Government concerned must propose this and, if accepted by the Commission, it is discussed in the management committee with the representatives of the other member States. When "Intervention B" has been approved, it is operated by the intervention agency in exactly the same way as ordinary intervention.
The passive nature of the support buying rôle of the Board needs to be emphasised since it explains why the main emphasis in organising the Board as an intervention agency needs to be on proper control of finance and administrative efficiency rather than on commodity expertise or commercial judgment.

Mr. Deakins: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us about aid for private storage which is permitted under certain regulations of the EEC? Is it the Minister's intention that the Board should give such aid?

Mr. Prior: I am coming to this matter later on the question of meat. The Board would have certain powers in this respect, but they would be very closely controlled.
We want to keep the size of the Board's staff as modest as possible. For example, the checking of the validity of export refund claims will be done by Customs and Excise. As far as possible, the agricultural departments will provide common services for the Board on the main establishment functions like accommodation and staff inspection and, at least in the formative stages, on legal matters. As well as this, the regional and technical staff of the agricultural departments will be employed, where possible, on appropriate duties. The Home Grown Cereals Authority and the Meat and Livestock Commission will be employed as the Board's agents to perform specifically defined blocks of work.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State announced in the House on 9th May that we had invited the Home Grown Cereals Authority to undertake, as executive agent of the Intervention Board, functions relating to denaturing, support buying, storage and selling and the collection of price information. The Authority has accepted this rôle, and discussions are proceeding on the necessary organisations and procedural arrangements.
I can now inform the Committee that the Meat and Livestock Commission has been invited to undertake a similar rôle in Great Britain as agent of the Board in respect of beef and pigmeat, The MLC will be carrying out specific functions relating to support buying and storage of commodities purchased by the Intervention Board and to the operation of aids to private storage. So, to this extent, that answers the question put to me by the hon. Member for Waltham-stow, West (Mr. Deakins). The MLC will also assist with the collection and provision of necessary price information.
In Northern Ireland corresponding agency functions will be performed by the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern


Ireland. Discussions are proceeding on the detailed implementation of these arrangements and on the procedures to be followed in the meat sector. The right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) asked me whether we had an intervention system for meat. I cannot believe that it will be needed very soon, but perhaps it would help me if it was.
In order to carry out its functions effectively, the offices of the Board need to be so placed that there is relatively easy access from all parts of the country and that contact with the agricultural departments and with Brussels can be made fairly rapidly. It is therefore proposed, in order to meet these requirements, to have the main office in Reading, a small secretariat office in central London, and regional offices in Scotland and Northern Ireland and, perhaps, in Wales.
I should emphasise that it is absolutely essential that the whole system should be working effectively on 1st February next year. We therefore have to use to the full the existing administrative and technical resources that are available in the planning stages, while at the same time being ready to move staff quickly to the Board as soon as it is set up. We had to adopt the simplest system and that likely to throw up the fewest communications and geographical problems. Reading is ideally situated from this point of view, and the right kind of accommodation is available there. Given the great deal of organisation and planning to be done in a very short time, an effective pragmatic solution was essential; but it should certainly not be regarded as necessarily creating a precedent for the location of other organisations which may be required in the EEC.
We do not propose that the Board should be unnecessarily centralised in Reading. The Reading organisation will cover the licensing and restitution functions and exercise general control over the support buying and denaturing functions. However, the agents of the Board—the Home Grown Cereals Authority, the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Agricultural Departments—will have staff based in the regions to undertake the operational work. In addition, the Board will have offices in Scotland, Northern Ireland and perhaps Wales to provide

information and advice to those concerned as well as co-ordinating, where necessary, the work of the Board and its agents in those countries.

Mr. John M. Temple (City of Chester): I am somewhat concerned about my right hon. Friend saying that the Board's composition will be rather small. I had felt that producers and consumers and, indeed, farm workers should be represented on the Board. Can my right hon. Friend help me and the Committee by informing us about the compositions of boards of a similar nature in other Common Market countries?

Mr. Prior: Other Common Market countries do not have precisely the same types of board as we have. This is rather different from any type of board that we have set up in this country—for example, the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Home Grown Cereals Authority, to which we have given executive and policy functions which this Board does not have. The real purpose of the Board, as such, in its executive functions is to give guidance to the Department generally on matters of trade, and so on. The main policy decisions are bound still to remain those which are formulated within the Department and for which the Minister and the Government are answerable to the House. So it is a rather different type of board from those which my hon. Friend is thinking of in terms of other agricultural produce.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: The right hon. Gentleman said that perhaps one of the regional offices would be in Wales. When will that be decided?

Mr. Prior: I said that perhaps there would be a regional office in Wales. No firm decision has been made yet, but I will let the right hon. Gentleman know as soon as one has been. [Interruption.] The Opposition have asked me an enormous number of questions and I am replying in some detail. It is important, as these questions were asked, that I should have a proper opportunity to answer, and this is the right place to do so. [Interruption.] I have already answered an enormous number of questions from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
I turn now to the question of finance, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang). Funds for the board's operations will be provided from Community funds in advance, except for the support buying of produce. For this, the Community fund refunds after the event the net loss incurred by the board through the purchase, storage and subsequent sale of produce. The administrative costs of the board are not borne by FEOGA, and, therefore, the costs of salaries and wages and the general running costs of the board will be borne by the Exchequer.
Hon. Members will readily appreciate that to have a board operational by 1st February, 1973—and we must have it by then if we are not to be in danger of losing substantial sums—requires much detailed planning. Staff need to be recruited, equipped and trained, and it will probably be necessary to take options at least on some storage space. As time is short, I have set these preparations in train in my Department. Staff and other administrative costs will be borne for the time being on the Ministry's Vote, but there are some items for which express provision needs to be made and for these I propose to submit a Supplementary Estimate before the Summer Recess. If it should prove necessary to make any payments before moneys are voted, I propose to draw on the contingency fund.

Mr. Farr: Will my right hon. Friend remember to mention if Liverpool or Duisburg will remain the area of greatest cereal deficiency in the Ten? When will he list the marketing centres in this country?

Mr. Prior: I will come to the question of cereal intervention.
Of course, work will go ahead as rapidly as possible in every way, and I would like to take this opportunity to honour an undertaking I made on Clause 2 to provide as much information as possible on the arrangements that will apply to cereals after 1st February, 1973. Since these arrangements constitute the cornerstone of the common agricultural policy, and since the Intervention Board's activities, certainly in the initial period, are likely to be largely concentrated on cereals, I believe them to be relevant to this Amendment.
The objective set out in the Act of Accession is to achieve a smooth transition from our present system to that of the common agricultural policy as we gradually move our prices towards the levels obtaining in the Community. As part of this process, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State told the House on 9th May, we want to preserve normal patterns of trade in this country subject to such changes in sources of supply as are likely to come about through our membership of an enlarged Community.
While the common agricultural policy introduces a new element into our support system—namely, intervention, including support buying and the denaturing of wheat—inother respects there will be little change in substance in the main elements of the support system that we now have. Internal prices will continue, as under our existing system of minimum import prices, to be maintained through the threshold price. Deficiency payments will continue until they are phased out as provided for under the Act of Accession. Improved and effective systems of marketing will be particularly important, and I must emphasise that the Community system of intervention is not designed to replace marketing.
As my hon. Friend said on 9th May, we fully recognise the importance of obtaining early decisions on those aspects of the new system which will have to be determined in Brussels. We have been in close touch with the Commission and with our future partners in the enlarged Community about this. They have all accepted the need for early decisions, and the matter is now firmly on the agenda of the Council of Agricultural Ministers—indeed, it discussed it earlier this week. Much of the preparatory work has already been done.
I am confident, therefore, that we can expect to see the necessary decisions taken before the end of July about the level of compensatory amounts, the pattern and prices of intervention centres, and the arrangements for making good export restitution and for pre-fixing levies in respect of transactions entered into before 1st February, 1973.
I am aware of some feeling that the end of July is too late and that the arrangements should have been announced sooner if disorder in the trade


and in our markets is to be avoided. Naturally, I, too, would have preferred an earlier date. But we must be realistic about this. 1st February will be at least six months ahead of the date on which these arrangements will have been announced. Until the end of December our existing and familiar system of minimum import prices will be maintained as a support to market prices or home-grown grains, so that there is no new factor that can affect the market situation up to that date. Thereafter, we shall need to make some interim arrangements for January. While I cannot announce what these will be at this stage, I have no intention that they should depart in substance from the arrangements that we at present have.
As I have said, the principal element affecting home market prices after 1st February will be the level of external protection; namely, the Community's threshold prices adjusted by the compensatory amounts. The Act of Accession provides in Article 51(3)
…that the application of the Community rules results in a level of market prices comparable with the level recorded"—in the United Kingdom—during a representative period preceding the implementation of the Community rules".
The mechanism to give effect to this is the compensatory amount. [Interruption.] I am trying to get through as fast as I can, but this is a very important matter for the Committee.
I am confident that we shall, within the period up to the end of July, be able to give all the information required to the House on these points and that there need be no fear after the end of the year that there will be a sudden jump in prices or anything of that nature. [Interruption.]
I have tried to answer the questions, the many detailed questions, which were put to me by hon. Members opposite. I am sorry that they do not wish to hear the argument pursued. I hope that the explanations I have given will at least satisfy some of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The right hon. Gentleman must not give the impression that his studiedly prepared speech was an attempt to answer points that had been raised in the debate. It is felt very strongly on this side of the Committee

that there should have been a White Paper incorporating the Minister's detailed policy statement in advance of this debate. We say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is deeply deplorable and an insult to the Committee that he did not inform our discussions with a White Paper on all that he has now said about the Intervention Board.
We have heard that henceforth the Ministry will become the "Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food and Intervention". The Minister must not object if we say that the Ministry is well on the way to becoming known as the "Maffia". The Opposition are concerned to ensure adequate representation for consumers. The right hon. Gentleman said very little about the consumer interest. Why does he so completely neglect our arguments in support of consumer representation? Is it that he has a guilty conscience? There have been 15,000 price increases since he became the Minister.
We are also concerned about the representation of agricultural workers. Farmers can be expected to have a very keen interest in the work of the Intervention Board. The consumers and working people have an equally important interest. The National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers is responsibly led and Mr. Reg Bottini and his colleagues have an important contribution to make.
The Committee has been treated with some contempt. I ask the Minister to ensure that we have the fullest possible further statement on his proposals about the Intervention Board which hon. Members can read and study carefully.
It is impossible adequately to debate these important Amendments. We are in a period of government by guillotine. It is not just this Bill which is being guillotined. Other extremely important legislation has been subjected to the guillotine by this Government. Yesterday was the longest day of the year. This debate, in proportion to its importance is the shortest debate of the epoch. The common agricultural policy is of vital importance to the living conditions of the people of this country. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the Amendment as a demonstration of our determination to defeat the insistence


of the Government on silencing parliamentary discussion and ignoring the interests of consumers and workers alike.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 265, Noes 281.

Division No. 238.]
AYES
[6.45 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Foley, Maurice
McNamara, J. Kevin


Allen, Scholefield
Foot, Michael
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Ford, Ben
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Ashley, Jack
Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth


Ashton, Joe
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marquand, David


Atkinson, Norman
Freeson, Reginald
Marsden, F.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gilbert, Dr. John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Marten, Neil


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Gourlay, Harry
Mayhew, Christopher


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Meacher, Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Biffen, John
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mendelson, John


Bishop, E. S.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mikardo, Ian


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Body, Richard
Hamling, William
Milne, Edward


Booth, Albert
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hardy, Peter
Moate, Roger


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Harper, Joseph
Molloy, William


Bradley, Tom
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hooson, Emlyn
Moyle, Roland


Buchan, Norman
Horam, John
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Murray, Ronald King


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Huckfield, Leslie
Oakes, Gordon


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ogden, Eric


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Halloran, Michael


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Malley, Brian


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oram, Bert


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Orme, Stanley


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Janner, Greville
Oswald, Thomas


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena



Cohen, Stanley
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Padley, Walter


Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Paget, R. T.


Concannon, J. D.
John, Brynmor
Palmer, Arthur


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Cronin, John
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurie


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Pendry, Tom


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Pentland, Norman


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Judd, Frank
Perry, Ernest G.


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kelley, Richard
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kerr, Russell
Prescott, John


Davis. Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kinnock, Neil
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Deakins, Eric
Lambie, David
Price, William (Rugby)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lamond, James
Probert, Arthur


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Latham, Arthur
Rankin, John


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Doig, Peter
Leonard, Dick
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dormand, J. D.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Richard, Ivor


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Driberg, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lomas, Kenneth
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dunnett, Jack
Loughlin, Charles
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Eadie, Alex
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Edelman, Maurice
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Roper, John


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rose, Paul B.


Ellis, Tom
McBride, Neil
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


English, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Rowlands, Ted


Evans, Fred
McElhone, Frank
Sandelson, Neville


Ewing, Henry
McGuire, Michael
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Faulds, Andrew
Mackenzie, Gregor
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fell, Anthony
Mackie, John
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Mackintosh, John P.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMaster, Stanley
Sillars, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillian, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Silverman, Julius




Skinner, Dennis
Tinn, James
Whitehead, Phillip


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Tomney, Frank
Whitlock, William


Spearing, Nigel
Torney, Tom
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Spriggs, Leslie
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Stallard, A. W.
Varley, Eric G.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Wainwright, Edwin
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Strang, Gavin
Wallace, George
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Watkins, David
Woof, Robert


Swain, Thomas
Weitzman, David



Taverne, Dick
Wellbeloved, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mr. John Golding and


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Mr. James A. Dunne.


Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kershaw, Anthony


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Eyre, Reginald
Kimball, Marcus


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fidler, Michael
King, Tom, (Bridgwater)


Astor, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Kinsey, J. R.


Awdry, Daniel
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Kirk, Peter


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kitson, Timothy


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Fortescue, Tim
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Foster, Sir John
Knox, David


Batsford, Brian
Fowler, Norman
Lambton, Lord


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fry, Peter
Lamont, Norman


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Lane, David


Benyon, W.
Gardner, Edward
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Biggs-Davison, John
Gibson-Watt, David
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Blaker, Peter
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Le Merchant, Spencer



Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)


Boscawen, Robert
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langston)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Goodhart, Philip
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Bowden, Andrew
Goodhew, Victor
Loveridge, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gorst, John
Luce, R. N.


Bray, Ronald
Gower, Raymond
MacArthur, Ian


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McCrindle, R. A.


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gray, Hamish
McLaren, Martin


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Green, Alan
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bruce Gardyne, J.
Grieve, Percy
Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N &amp; M)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maddan, Martin


Buck, Antony
Grylls, Michael
Madel, David


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gummer, Selwyn
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Gurden, Harold
Mather, Carol


Carlisle, Mark
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, Ray


Channon, Paul
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Miscampbell, Norman


Churchill, W. S.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hastings, Stephen
Money, Ernle


Cockeram, Eric
Havers, Michael



Cooke, Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Coombs, Derek
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Monro, Hector


Cooper, A. E.
Hicks, Robert
Montgomery, Fergus


Cordle, John
Higgins, Terence L.
More, Jasper



Hiley, Joseph
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Cormack, Patrick
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Morrison, Charles


Costain, A. P.
Holland, Philip
Mudd, David


Critchley, Julian
Holt, Miss Mary
Murton, Oscar


Crouch, David
Hordern, Peter
Neave, Airey


Crowder, F. P.
Hornby, Richard
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hornsby Smith, Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Normanton, Tom


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Nott, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Hunt, John
Onslow, Cranley


Dean, Paul
Iremonger, T. L.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
James, David
Osborn, John


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Dixon, Piers
Jessel, Toby
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Drayson, G. B.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pardoe, John


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Parkinson, Cecil


Dykes, Hugh
Jopling, Micheal
Peel, John


Eden, Sir John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Percival, Ian


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John







Pike, Miss Mervyn
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Pink, R. Bonner
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Trew, Peter


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Simeons, Charles
Tugendhat, Christopher


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Sinclair, Sir George
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Skeet, T. H. H.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Soref, Harold
Waddington, David


Raison, Timothy
Speed, Keith
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Spence, John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Sproat, Iain
Wall, Patrick


Redmond, Robert
Stainton, Keith
Walters, Dennis


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Ward, Dame Irene


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Warren, Kenneth


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stokes, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wiggin, Jerry


Ridsdale, Julian
Tapsell, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Winterton, Nicholas


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Tebbit, Norman
Woodnutt, Mark


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Temple, John M.
Worsley, Marcus


Rost, Peter
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Royle, Anthony
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Younger, Hn. George


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)



Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Scott, Nicholas
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Sharples, Richard
Tilney, John
Mr. Marcus Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 273, in page 9, line 24, after 'produce', insert 'or consumption'.—[Mr. Peart.]

The Committee divided: Ayes 267. Noes 282.

Division No. 239.]
AYES
[6.55 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Allen, Scholefield
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Ashley, Jack
Davidson, Arthur
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hamling, William


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hardy, Peter


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Harper, Joseph


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Deakins, Eric
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Bennett, James (Glasgow. Bridgeton)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hattersley, Roy


Bidwell, Sydney
Dempsey, James
Heffer, Eric S.


Biffen, John
Doig, Peter
Hooson, Emlyn


Bishop, E. S.
Dormand, J. D.
Horam, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Body, Richard
Driberg, Tom
Huckfield, Leslie


Booth, Albert
Duffy, A. E. P
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Bradley, Tom
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hunter, Adam


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ellis, Tom
Irvine,Rt.Hn.Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
English, Michael
Janner, Greville


Buchan, Norman
Evans, Fred
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, S'pburn)
Ewing, Henry
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Faulds, Andrew
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Fell, Anthony
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
John, Brynmor


Cant, R. B.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Carmichael, Neil
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Foley, Maurice
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Foot, Michael
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Ford, Ben
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Forrester, John
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Cohen, Stanley
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Judd, Frank


Coleman, Donald
Freeson, Reginald
Kaufman, Gerald


Concannon, J. D.
Gilbert, Dr. John
Kelley, Richard


Conlan, Bernard
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Kerr, Russell


Crawshaw, Richard
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Kilfedder, James


Cronin, John
Gourlay, Harry
Kinnock, Neil


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lambie, David


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lamond, James


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Latham, Arthur




Leadbitter, Ted
Murray, Ronald King
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Leonard, Dick
Oakes, Gordon
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Ogden, Eric
Sillars, James


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Silverman, Julius


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
O'Malley, Brian
Skinner, Dennis


Lipton, Marcus
Oram, Bert
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Lomas, Kenneth
Orbach, Maurice
Spearing, Nigel


Loughlin, Charles
Orme, Stanley
Spriggs, Leslie


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Oswald, Thomas
Stallard, A. W.


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Padley, Walter
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


McBride, Neil
Paget, R. T.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


McCartney, Hugh
Paisley, Rev. Ian
Strang, Gavin


McElhone, Frank
Palmer, Arthur
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


McGuire, Michael
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Swain, Thomas


Mackenzie, Gregor
Parker John (Dagenham)
Taverne, Dick


Mackie, John
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Mackintosh, John P.
Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Maclennan, Robert
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


McMaster, Stanley
Pendry, Tom
Tinn, James


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Pentland, Norman
Tomney, Frank


McNamara, J. Kevin
Perry, Ernest G.
Torney, Tom


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Urwin, T. W.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Varley, Eric G.


Marks, Kenneth
Prescott, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Marquand, David
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Marsden, F.
Price, William (Rugby)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Probert, Arthur
Wallace, George


Marten, Neil
Rankin, John
Watkins, David


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Weitzman, David


Mayhew, Christopher
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wellbeloved, James


Meacher, Michael
Rhodes, Geoffrey
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Richard, Ivor
Whitehead, Phillip


Mendelson, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitlock, William


Mikardo, Ian
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Millan, Bruce
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Milne, Edward
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Roper, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Moate, Roger
Rose, Paul B.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Molloy, William
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rowlands, Ted
Woof, Robert


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sandelson, Neville



Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Mr. John Golding and


Moyle, Roland
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Mr. James A. Dunn.


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick






NOES


Adley, Robert
Chapman, Sydney
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fidler, Michael


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Churchill, W. S.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Astor, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fortescue, Tim


Awdry, Daniel
Cockeram, Eric
Foster, Sir John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Cooke, Robert
Fowler, Norman


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Coombs, Derek
Fry, Peter


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Cooper, A. E.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Batsford, Brian
Cordle, John
Gardner, Edward


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Gibson-Watt, David


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cormack, Patrick
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Benyon, W.
Costain, A. P.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Critchley, Julian
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Blaker, Peter
Crouch, David
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Crowder, F. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Boscawen, Robert
Dalkeith, Earl of
Goodhew, Victor


Bossom, Sir Clive
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Gorst, John


Bowden, Andrew
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gower, Raymond


Braine, Sir Bernard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Bray, Ronald
Dean, Paul
Gray, Hamish


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Green, Alan


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Grieve, Percy


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dixon, Piers
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Drayson, G. B.
Grylls, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N &amp; M)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Gummer, J. Selwyn


Buck, Antony
Dykes, Hugh
Gurden, Harold


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Eden, Sir John
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Campbell, Rt. Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Carlisle, Mark
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Channon, Paul
Eyre, Reginald
Hannam, John (Exeter)







Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Masher, Carol
Scott, Nicholas


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Sharples, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Mawby, Ray
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hastings, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Havers, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Simeons, Charles


Hayhoe, Barney
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Sinclair, Sir George


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Miscampbell, Norman
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hicks, Robert
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Soref, Harold


Hiley, Joseph
Money, Ernle
Speed, Keith


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Spence, John


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Monro, Hector
Sproat, Iain


Holland, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus
Stainton, Keith


Holt, Miss Mary
More, Jasper
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hordern, Peter
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Hornby, Richard
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Morrison, Charles
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Mudd, David
Stokes, John


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Murton, Oscar
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hunt, John
Neave, Airey
Tapsell, Peter


Iremonger, T. L.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


James, David
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Normanton, Tom
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Jessel, Toby
Nott, John
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)



Onslow, Cranley
Tebbit, Norman


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Temple, John M.


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Osborn, John
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Jopling, Michael
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pardoe, John
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Parkinson, Cecil
Tilney, John


Kershaw, Anthony
Peel, John
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Kimball, Marcus
Percival, Ian
Trew, Peter


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Tugendhat, Christopher


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kinsey, J. R.
Pink, R. Bonner
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Kirk, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Kitson, Timothy
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Waddington, David


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Knox, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Lambton, Lord
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wall, Patrick


Lamont, Norman
Raison, Timothy
Walters, Dennis


Lane, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Ward, Dame Irene


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Redmont, Robert
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'n C'dfield)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wiggin, Jerry


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wilkinson, John


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Winterton, Nicholas


Loveridge, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Luce, R. N.
Ridsdale, Julian
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


MacArthur, Ian
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Woodnutt, Mark


McCrindle, R. A.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Worsley, Marcus


McLaren, Martin
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Younger, Hn. George


Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)



McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rost, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maddan, Martin
Royle, Anthony
Mr. Marcus Fox and


Madel, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Mr. Paul Hawkins.


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Peart: I beg to move Amendment No. 443, in page 10, line 44, leave out subsection (7).

The Temporary Chairman: It will be convenient also to discuss the following Opposition Amendments: No. 386, in page 11, line 3, leave out from 'made' to 'provide' in line 5 and insert:
'in pursuance of an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament'.

No. 384, in line 17, at end add:
(9) Nothing in this section shall prevent annual negotiations between the United King-

dom Government and representatives of agricultural producers to be followed by the publication of a review containing details of farm production and changes in costs throughout the previous 12 months, and listing the proposed target indicator prices, intervention buying prices, level of production grants, and the levels at which the various import levies shall be fixed.

and No. 387, in line 17, at end add:
(9) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall remove the duty of the Minister to fix the level of production grants, improvement grants and of deficiency payments following upon an annual farm price review.

Mr. Peart: The Amendments deal with the whole pricing system of the Community because the Clause deals with the phasing out of the existing support system to prepare the way for the Community levy system. Subsection (7) deals specifically with this and says that the Agriculture Act, 1957,
should cease to apply to produce of any description mentioned in Schedule 1 to that Act".
On the last debate I mentioned the 1957 Act and the Agriculture Act, 1947. The 1957 Act was based on experience derived from the 1947 Act, which dealt with assured markets and guaranteed prices. The system was later modified, and in the 1957 Act the guarantees were safeguarded so that the farmer would be certain that as a result of a Price Review there would be no major cuts in guarantees. The 1947 and 1957 legislation represented the consensus of all parties.
In the Clause we are ending a system which worked well. The Minister said that we have probably been wedded to it for too long. I confess that I feel some nostalgia for it. But the levy system in the Community is not working well. I will not deploy my argument in too great detail on the Amendment because I know that many hon. Members want to move on to a major debate on the Question "That Clause stand part of the Bill" so that the common agricultural policy can be discussed. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) mentioned the effect of the Treaty of Accession on New Zealand, but I shall deal with that, too, during the major debate.
The Minister's statement was so important that we should discuss it when we discuss the Clause as a whole. It was so important that it should have been contained in a White Paper. His speech contained a major reform of Government. It is a major matter affecting responsibility in other spheres and should have been dealt with by the Prime Minister. I was surprised that the Minister made that speech.
However, we are now debating whether we should adopt the levy system and whether or not we should phase out guarantees under the 1957 Act covering various commodities in Schedule 1, including wheat, barley, oats, rye and livestock products, including fat cattle, fat sheep and fat pigs, and liquid cow's milk.

All these are mentioned in the Schedule. Hon. Members who follow the subject with interest know full well the implications of our Amendment and why we are moving it.
If we are considering the determination of guarantees under the Community policy we must think about discussions with the farming community. I hope that hon. Members have carefully read in Part I of the Treaty of Accession the declaration dealing with the new system for fixing Community farm prices, which we shall have to adopt when we join the Community. It is a very important declaration, in which is spelt out in great detail the policy we shall have to adopt. The policy in no way matches up to the type of Price Review procedure we have been used to under the 1947 Act legislation and the 1957 Act legislation. I dealt with four Price Review negotiations when I was Minister. There were often great arguments between the farming community and the Government on such occasions, under Governments of different political complexions. Such discussion was right and proper. It enabled the farming community to participate in decisions which in the end were the Minister's responsibility. There was a kind of partnership which was reflected throughout the agricultural community.
The 1947 Act laid down the procedure of the Price Review. Linked with that, we had an administrative committee system whereby the farming community was brought in when executive actions had to be taken, even down to county level. The Price Review system is to go. Some farmers believe they will have a similar system in the Community. I ask them to read the declaration in the Treaty of Accession, announced by Mr. Scheel, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany, on behalf of the Community delegation, which was agreed to by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on behalf of the United Kingdom delegation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman feels that there will be
effective and meaningful contacts…with producer organisations operating at Community level.
I know that the National Farmers Union will play its part in its own European producer organisation, but when we consider the Community structure, the Commission itself, the Council of Ministers,


we see that there cannot be the same sort of review procedure as we have under our existing legislation. My experience is that even though sometimes review procedures are rather awkward and irksome for the Ministers responsible for finally announcing their decisions to the House, and later justifying them to the farming community, the system has worked well. Under the system we now see emerging in Europe, things will never be the same. I believe that there will not be a meaningful discussion; I cannot see how it can be possible in view of the various organisations which must be consulted. In the declaration we see spelt out in detail the type of bodies, apart from farmers, which will have to be consulted. There cannot be the same type of consultation.

[MR. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

7.15 p.m.

A levy system will affect the consumer. Some people will say that under it there is a managed market behind a tariff wall, which will protect the farmer. Today we have heard the defence that there will be high prices for the farmer; but high prices for the farmer can also mean high costs for him. Many farmers within the Community have protested vigorously from time to time against decisions taken by the Brussels Commission. The many farmers in different parts of the Community who have frequently demonstrated against decisions of the Commission and the administration of the CAP, even though they have their own organisation there behind the tariff wall and have a levy, have not reached Utopia. In many ways their conditions have been inferior to those of farmers in this country.

A levy system also harms traditional suppliers. It will break down some of the long-standing international arrangements we have had with countries like New Zealand. It will harm our international relations. This is not a matter specifically for the Amendment. I have said that I should like to be brief so that we can quickly come to the main discussions on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" which are so important, but I feel strongly about the levy system. Support buying of meat does not work in other countries. It has been extremely costly. When I set up the Meat and Livestock Commission I

considered whether it should be given powers of support buying, but I was pressed by farmers and the trade, who said that support buying was too expensive to be worth while. Now it is to be adopted in another form. We shall wait and see what happens. The Minister should be very cautious about it.

We are to have the managed market levy system, and the old guarantee system is to be phased out. The different system that we are to have is not working in the Community despite what hon. Members have said. I am prepared to substantiate that statement with evidence in our later debate. The system has forced up prices, and it creates an atmosphere of restriction. It creates an economic autarky. It could be disastrous for this country, which has built up relations over the years with our friends in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. It could harm friends who stood by us in time of crisis. For example, when we had a food shortage immediately after the war the New Zealanders never took advantage of their position in the market with some of their dairy products. They played their part honourably. I say that to the hon. Member for Gainsborough, who spoke rather slightingly about New Zealand's attitude today.

Above all, I shall never forget the men and women in New Zealand and Australia. Most of them are our people, and I do feel sentimental about the matter. After all, the liberty of Europe and democracy in Europe were defended and won by New Zealand and Australian men and women. We should never forget that, though some hon. Members do. I do not apologise for feeling strongly about this. When we destroy a system which has worked and introduce a levy system which harms traditional alliances, we should remember that those people volunteered when we needed their help. We did not have to ask for it. Therefore, I am sorry we are adopting the new policy. It is fundamentally wrong, as history will one day confirm.

Sir Robin Turton: While we are dealing with this, it would be helpful if the Minister gave us a clearer picture of the position in British agriculture after our entry than we received on the first, rather technical, Amendment.
There are five points about which farmers are worried. The first has been


referred to by the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart). We want a meaningful Review. The fear is that, after our entry, the Annual Price Review will not be the same as we have known in the past.
Second, how will the new system work? In grain, it will make a great difference to British agriculture how many intervention centres are allowed in this country. I have heard no statement about this. In countries such as France, there are 11 main and about 240 subsidiary centres, which means that the average profitability of the grain fanners in different areas is levelled out. It is of great concern to British agriculture to know exactly how the Minister contemplates this part of the policy being worked out.
There are two great worries that I have always had. I represent an area with a large number of hill farms which depend heavily on the hill sheep and hill cattle subsidies and the wool industry. Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome apparently makes it difficult to have a subsidy on the product, which is how these hill subsidies can be described. I have never had a clear assurance, either here or in Brussels, that these forms of assistance will be continued after the transitional period. If they are to be phased out, I should like to know at what stage, in the Minister's plans, this will happen.
We talk generally of being able, when we are on the "top table", to convert the Community to our methods of regional policy. But in agriculture they are two different problems. The British farmer on marginal or hill land has quite a different size of holding and faces quite different problems from similar Continental farmers. The average British holding is just over 80 acres, whereas in Italy it is 18acres.
We need certain assurances that support for wool will be continued after entry or at any rate after the transitional period and that there will be some help for the hill farmer related to the number of animals that he keeps on his holding. Many of my hill farmers probably have a holding of 60 to 100 acres, but they also have strays over moorland, thus effectively extending their holding to 800 or 1,000 acres.
These farmers must be assured that they will be no worse off after entry than they

are now. Going around my hill areas, I find great concern that the transition will be disastrous for them, although no doubt it will help the barley barons.
Then there is our method of making agriculture self-sufficient and efficient by means of capital grants. In the Community, the method of assistance is by a subsidised rate of interest. The Minister knows that the Country Land Owners Association set up a working party to look into this. This has reported that in its view our system of capital grants for farmers is betting than the EEC system. They are very worried that our system will be abandoned.
In an extremely wise and far-seeing Price Review this year, the Minister or the negotiators made one glaring error in not pressing for the retention of the investment incentive. I gather that it had to be dropped because of our projected entry of the Community, where it would be contrary to their provision, since such a high rate of percentage of subsidy on capital improvements would not be allowed.

Mr. Prior: That is not true. I will deal with this matter in greater detail later, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that that was not the case.

Sir Robin Turton: I am reassured by that. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that clear.
It is important that we should be able, both during the transitional period and thereafter, to help agriculture to become efficient by means of a capital grant rather than by this form of subsidised loan, which has not been effective in the EEC.
The worry in British agriculture is that the picture is obscure because the Minister has not been able to say how the different parts of British agriculture will be treated under the common agricultural policy. Bearing in mind that the CAP, whatever its virtues, is unpopular in many areas of the Community, because while some farmers gain, many lose, it is vital to British agriculture that the Minister should give us as clear a picture as possible today.

Mr. Farr: I endorse the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) that the procedure should be an affirmative Resolution rather than


a negative one. My own bitter experience of negative Resolutions in this place is that a Prayer that one tables in conjunction with hon. Friends is lost in the mists of time and is heard of no more.
One of the right hon. Member's Amendments makes a very modest request for the retention in some form of our traditional Price Review system. We all know that, if we enter the Market, the Price Review system can never be the same again. The next one will be the first at which the Minister will no longer be an entirely free agent. We recognise that, if and when we enter, many of the matters discussed between producers and Government will not be matters in which this Government have the last word.
All I ask—this is why I support this Amendment—is that the Minister should go through this procedure. Let him conduct the Price Review negotiations in the way suggested in the Amendment. By so doing he will create good will in the farming community who greatly value this direct access to the Minister.
The Amendment merely requires to be recorded the price levels of the past year and the critical levels for the next year. That is a modest request, and the information is essential to enable the efficient producer to be able to compete effectively. I support the Amendment.
I hope that my right hon. Friend, if he will not support it—and I do not suppose he wants to be responsible for bringing about a Report stage of the Bill—will say that there will still be a ghostly shadow left of the old Price Review system, some method by which producers continue to have direct access to the Minister of the day as they have now.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Prior: I will detain the Committee for as short a time as possible so that we can get on to the debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". In the last debate I went into too much detail and was criticised by the Opposition for so doing. If I do not go into detail now no doubt the Opposition will be on to me for not doing so.
The right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) paid a tribute to the

Commonwealth which may not be strictly in order in this debate but, since he did so, I also pay tribute to the Commonwealth. No one on this side of the Committee who is in favour of the Bill wishes in any way to underestimate the enormous contribution made by the Commonwealth to our food supplies and to our country over many years. That is why we have throughout the negotiations done everything we can to protect the interests of the Commonwealth and in many respects have been extremely successful in so doing.
Some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) will be best dealt with on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". But since he and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) asked about the Annual Price Review, perhaps I should say that there is nothing in the Clause which will in any way affect the holding of reviews or the publication of a White Paper thereafter. To express a personal desire, I hope that the White Paper need not be so complicated as it sometimes is. Its preparation takes a great deal of time and effort. The provision in Section 2 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, which requires the holding of Annual Reviews will remain in force and, as was emphasised in this year's Annual Review White Paper, the Annual Review system will go on even though its content and procedure may be gradually modified.
We shall hold our own Annual Review and it will be up to the Minister to go to Brussels and speak in the Council of Ministers to protect the interests of our own agriculture. I can see that before long the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners' Association and the NUAW will be putting their representations in Brussels strongly, and enormously influencing the agricultural policy of the Community.
I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I leave until the debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", how the intervention system will work, how our prices will move over the next five years and the question of hill sheep and hill cow subsidies and cattle grants.
Turning to Amendment No. 443, which is to omit subsection (7), the right


hon. Member for Workington will know that the Government have been changing the agricultural policy and have started to move over to a levy system. It would have been our intention, had the policy continued without Community entry, over a period of years to move up our market prices until they reached the guaranteed price. At that time the guaranteed price would have been phased out. It is what the subsection seeks to do. During the transitional period we are free to retain our guarantee system for as long as it is required for any commodity. Article 55 of the Treaty of Accession allows us to move up our guaranteed prices in a series of steps similar to those by which our market price will gradually arrive at the level of the EEC common price.
Although I am by no means convinced that we shall need to operate that part of the Treaty of Accession, we have freedom of action, which is important. But the time will come when our market prices are above the guaranteed price, and at that time it is only sensible that the Government should have power to remove those commodities from the guarantee. At that stage the removal of the obligation under the present support system will be no more than a tidying-up operation which will simplify administration and allow staff engaged on that guarantee to be reassigned to other duties.
There does not seem to be any need—because the operation of the guarantee will have been overtaken by events—to require an affirmative Resolution procedure for such regulations. They will be straightforward, simply stating an appointed day for a commodity to be removed from the guarantee system and making any transitional and saving provisions that may be necessary. In most cases the facts of the situation will demonstrate the need for this, and the regulations should raise no controversy either among the farming community or in the House of Commons.
To sum up, the powers in the subsection are necessary so that the move from one system of support to another can be operated simply and economically.

Sir Robin Turton: I agree that most of the points which I raised would be better dealt with later, but the arguments which my right hon. Friend has used

about other commodities will not apply to wool.

Mr. Prior: I will deal with that later. Wool is not an agricultural product within the common agricultural policy and it is protected by means of the common external tariff. I will later describe the various arrangements to be made which I hope will satisfy my right hon. Friend's agricultural and sheep farming constituents.
As we move from one support system to another, we shall need to make these changes. They are a necessary part of the mechanics of transition and we shall use them in the interests of the progressive development of our farming industry.
It is remarkable that, with all the difficulties we have had over the common agricultural policy and the natural fears of farmers about moving from one system to another, confidence in the industry has been retained. The evidence of that is that production is going up fast and that the farming industry is in a buoyant mood. One sees no indication that what could have been a traumatic experience for the farming industry has come about. In fairness, the majority of farmers understand that it is to their benefit, that for a period the guaranteed prices will be continued whilst we are moving up to market prices. They realise that this gives them the best opportunity they have had for many years to increase production not only for use at home but also for export.
It is a remarkable fact that we have been through all these difficulties in the last 18 months and have retained confidence in the industry. I can give the industry and the Committee the assurance that the Government will do everything in their power, both here and in Brussels, to see that British agriculture can go on moving forward so that changes which have to be made are brought about gradually and sensibly and with full consultation with the industry concerned. I believe that the Committee has had a fair explanation of why we regard the subsection as essential to the Bill, and I hope that the Opposition will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Deakins: I am surprised at the Minister's bland and rather complacent conclusion to this debate. Although it is a somewhat truncated debate since we


are anxious to get on to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," nevertheless we are in this Amendment dealing with the heart of Clause 6.
The Committee should be under no illusion about this matter. If this subsection is removed we shall be striking a blow against the adoption of the CAP in this country and shall be forcing any future Government—and certainly the present Government, if they last for another two to three years—to ensure that when a commodity is removed from the protection of the 1957 Agriculture Act they will have to come to Parliament for legislation to do so.
I rather feel like asking for a minute's silence in memory of the death of a bipartisan agricultural policy in this country—not the death of a lusty infant, but of a full-grown person who has lasted for 25 or 26 years. This debate, and indeed the whole of today's debate, is a watershed in the history of British agriculture and of British political attitudes to agriculture.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: The hon. Gentleman speaks about being in mourning for a bipartisan agricultural policy. Admittedly whenever it has been bipartisan, this has been much to the benefit of agriculture, but surely he will know, even if he was not then in the House, that such policy ceased to be bipartisan in 1964 and that on earlier occasions the Labour Party vigorously attacked the important changes brought in by the Conservatives, notably in the introduction of the deficiency payments which Labour Members now eulogise.

Mr. Deakins: What I am saying is that this bipartisanship has operated since the war and has given a measure of protection to our agriculture in accordance with the system laid down in the 1947 and 1957 Acts. However, what is now being proposed is a root-and-branch change. This has never been suggested before.
We must remember what the bipartisan policy has achieved. It has given us a prosperous agriculture, with food being sold at a reasonable price to the consumer and at a limited cost to the direct taxpayer. It was not a policy to produce all we could in this country regardless of social cost, for we recognised the need to trade with other countries of the Com-

monwealth and particularly our obligations both to Commonwealth countries and to the developing countries of the world. The policy produced tremendous increases in productivity in agriculture, and in my view it has transformed it into one of the biggest and most efficient industries in this country.
That bipartisan policy may not have been perfect, but it will ge generaly agreed that there is no agricultural policy which has existed since the war in any developed country in the world, which has been able as successfully as our agricultural policy to reconcile the interests of the taxpayer, the consumer and the producer.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's latter remarks, but would he not agree that what the policy has not done is to ensure that the agricultural worker has had his share of the general increase in prosperity which has taken place throughout the country? One of the great hopes of the future, as we see higher prices, is that agricultural workers will be able at least to share in the increased prosperity which I feel sure will flow from our participation in Europe.

Mr. Deakins: The hon. Gentleman is an optimist and is welcome to his optimism, but there was nothing in the 1947, 1957 or 1967 Agriculture Acts to prevent farmers from doing what more progressive farmers have done—namely, to pay more than the minimum wages of the Agricultural Wages Board. Most progressive farmers already pay well above the odds and there is no reason why the rest should not do so.
The bipartisan policy was decided by direct negotiatiton between producers in this country and the Government. It may be that it was too narrow a basis of consultation, but it was based not on any airy-fairy political thinking as to what should be done for peasants and producers but on rigorous figures involving costs, incomes and profits on farms. I believe that the 1947 and 1957 Acts are wonderful examples of how the Government can intervene in industrial life successfully, both to the benefit of the industry and to the benefit of the national economy as a whole.
What will be the result if Amendment No. 443 is rejected and if we are able


to phase out the guaranteed prices for commodities? Producers are not yet aware of what is in store for them. There is a degree of euphoria which I can understand but which is not warranted by the facts of the situation. They are exchanging guaranteed prices for a much greater degree of uncertainty under the CAP where there are much wider fluctuations in end results than are likely to happen, or have happened under the present system. In my opinion this is likely to lead to a slowdown in investment on the livestock side, and in breeding, feeding, housing and management techniques which have led to a great increase in agricultural activity since the war.
Furthermore, labour shortages—which are experienced in this country but which our competitors in the Community do not have—in key sectors of agriculture will undoubtedly mean more competition and a much greater incentive to use more intensive methods of production. Farmers complain that under the present system, which they say acts as a squeeze on their incomes, they are forced to resort to these intensive methods. But under the new system competition will be even greater and they will be forced, much more than in the past, to enter into forms of intensive production which will result in problems of pollution, such as slurry disposal and runoff from inorganic fertilisers, the problem of soil fertility—and the Strutt Report was widely accepted as a warning—and the problems of environmental encroachment, notably by the digging up of hedges and ditches. Farmers may not want to produce these results in terms of pollution, but pressures as a result of the CAP will force them to adopt such production policies to enable them to compete effectively.
Fanners will be faced with problems of competing land use as between land for cereal production, or grassland for beef, or grassland for milk. One cannot do all three things with the same piece of land. The incentive to produce cereals will mean that many farmers will switch to cereals from other crops and from using grassland for milk production.
Then again, the Committee has not discussed fully the effect on individual commodities, and it may not have the opportunity on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. Everyone in agri-

culture knows that cereals and beef will do extremely well. But what about pigs when the Bacon Stabilisation Scheme disappears under the Community regulations? What will be the future of the bacon and the bacon pig industries, which for decades past have been the backbone of our pig industry? What is to happen to the flexible guarantee arrangements? Shall we go back to the days of the notorious pig cycle which operated between the wars? What about the Northern Ireland Pigs Marketing Board, especially its monopoly marketing powers? These are subjects which have been dismissed, and it looks as though this Government intend to take us into the Common Market without dealing with these problems.
On milk, there is the problem of the imbalance between winter and summer milk production and the imbalance between liquid and manufacturing production, simply because there will be a greater incentive to put milk into manufacturing since there will be higher end prices.
Poultry has hardly been mentioned at all. It is not a guaranteed price commodity. However, food costs will rocket. What will be the future of the industry?
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) mentioned wool in connection with hill farms. There is no guaranteed price for wool in the Community and there are no special arrangements. What is to be the future of hill farmers in that regard?
Horticulture has been sufficiently debated in the Committee and in the House generally to show that it, too, faces severe problems.
Then there is the point made by both the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton and the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) about the Annual Price Review. There will be no Annual Price Review in the United Kingdom in future. There will continue to be an annual review of conditions and prospects, we are told by the Minister. But surely this represents a severe loss to the United Kingdom agriculture. It is no use saying that we shall have representatives in Brussels. There will be other countries and other interests with representatives in Brussels as well. Let us not forget that there will not be the cosy negotiations


which have taken place in this country for the past 20 years. Market management, support buying and subsidised interest rates to agriculture are no substitute for the present system of guaranteed prices, deficiency payments and production and capital grants.
The return to a free market, which has created a great deal of euphoria on the benches opposite and among British farmers, could produce some surprises. A whole generation of farmers has grown up since the 1930s who have no idea what is involved in a free market in agricultural products. They have no experience of its operation, and I believe that they will have a severe shock, especially after the Minister's so-called tidying up operation to remove guaranteed commodities from the protection of the 1957 Act.
What is the effect on the consumer? After all, the right hon. Gentleman is also Minister of Food. We know that food prices will go up and that higher prices will hit pensioners, though they may be taken care of by an annual pensions review. But who is to take care of large families and low income groups, who spend a bigger proportion of their budgets on food? Inevitably, there will be a cut in their living standards. They will have to eat less beef and butter because, under the common agricultural policy, consumer resistance to high prices does not have the normal effect. The commodities which cannot be sold to housewives in the Community are exported at subsidised prices, or stored, or fed to cattle. That is the way that the common agricultural policy works.
Ought not right hon. and hon. Members opposite to consider the logic of a policy whereby the British housewife pays to improve the competitive efficiency of the Continental competitors of our own farmers by means of our contributions to the Community budget? Is it not surprising that our producers, preoccupied with the E1 Dorado that they think is coming, do not see that by its very nature the common agricultural policy must weaken their own competitive position in terms of farm size, mechanisation, and so on? Basically, that is what the Community agricultural budget is about. It is concerned with making Continental agriculture more efficient.
Amendment No. 384 repairs the omission not to have a statutory annual review. Even the annual review that we have been promised is not to be put on a statutory basis. Any future Government could decide to do away with it. We need proper cost and income assessments before our Ministers go to Brussels. What is more, we need firm and agreed prices on the basis of which our Ministers can negotiate in Brussels.
Amendment No. 386 calls for the affirmative procedure when commodities are removed from the protection of the 1957 Act. It is not just a tidying up operation to be dealt with by negative Resolution without any debate. We need as a very minimum the affirmative Resolution procedure. Every time that a commodity is removed a considerable sector of the agricultural industry will be worried and will need to have its worries assuaged and debated in this House before the Measure effecting the removal becomes law.
Amendment No. 387 emphasises that it is the duty of our Minister to fix the level of production and improvement grants in this country. I hope that this is a matter that the Government will be prepared to consider. The law about this should not be laid down in Brussels.
Amendment No. 443 is the crux of the matter. It is the most important. It defends the present guaranteed price system which has been a partnership between the producer and the consumer. We may have needed to do more on the consumer side. Nevertheless it has been a partnership. In the common agricultural policy there is no partnership between producers and consumers. It is a case of the producer first and the consumer nowhere. Are butter prices too high? Someone is bound to say, "Let them eat margarine". Are beef prices too high? Someone is bound to say, "Let them eat poultry". Are bread prices too high? We understand that the three-shilling loaf is coming in the life of this Government. Will it be our Minister who says, "Let them eat cake"?
Are our producers happy at the prospect of what is to come under the common agricultural policy? They are happy because they think that they will be standing on their own feet. In reality,


they will be standing on the feet of British housewives. No one has a good word to say for the common agricultural policy. It is a ludicrous policy. It is an ill-conceived policy. It is a policy which has failed to achieve the purposes for which it was designed. In the process it has hurt the housewife and the taxpayer, and it has disrupted international agricultural trade.

For all those reasons, we on this side of the Committee intend to press the Amendment. We hope that the Committee will support us.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 262, Noes 275.

Division No. 240.]
AYES
[8.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
English, Michael
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Allen, Scholefield
Evans, Fred
Lewis, Ron (carlisle)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Ewing, Henry
Lomas, Kenneth


Ashley, Jack
Farr, John
Loughlin, Charles


Ashton, Joe
Faulds, Andrew
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Atkinson, Norman
Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McBride, Neil


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCartney, Hugh


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Foley, Maurice
McElhone, Frank


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Foot, Michael
McGuire, Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Ford, Ben
Mackenzie, Gregor


Biffen, John
Forrester, John
Mackie, John


Bishop, E. S.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackintosh, John P.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Freeson, Reginald
Maclennan, Robert


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gilbert, Dr. John
McMaster, Stanley


Body, Richard
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Booth, Albert
Golding, John
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Gourlay, Harry
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bradley, Tom
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marks, Kenneth


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marquand, David


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marsden, F.


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marten, Neil


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hamling, William
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mayhew, Christopher


Callaghan. Rt. Hn. James
Hardy, Peter
Meacher, Michael


Cant, R. B.
Harrison, Walter (Wakelield)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Carmichael, Nell
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mendelson, John


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hattersley, Roy
Mikardo, Ian


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)




Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Heffer, Eric S.
Millan, Bruce


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hooson, Emlyn
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Horam, John
Milne, Edward


Cohen, Stanley
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Coleman, Donald
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)



Concannon, J. D.
Huckfield, Leslie
Moate, Roger


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Molloy, William


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardinganshire)


Cronin, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hunter, Adam
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur (Edge Hill)
Moyle, Roland


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Greville
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Murray, Ronald King


Davidson, Arthur
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Oakes, Gordon


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ogden, Eric


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
O'Halloran, Michael


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
John, Brynmor
Oram, Bert


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Orbach, Maurice


Deakins, Eric
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Orme, Stanley


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Oswald, Thomas


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Dempsey, James
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Padley, Walter


Doig, Peter
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Paget, R. T.


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)



Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Judd, Frank
Palmer, Arthur


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kaufman, Gerald
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Driberg, Tom
Kelley, Richard
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kerr, Russell
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Dunn, James A.
Lambie, David
Pavitt, Laurie


Dunnett, Jack
Lamond, James
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Eadie, Alex
Latham, Arthur
Pendry, Tom


Edelman, Maurice
Leadbitter, Ted
Pentland, Norman


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Leonard, Dick
Perry, Ernest G.


Ellis, Tom
Lestor, Miss Joan
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch




Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wainwright, Edwin


Prescott, John
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Sillars, James
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Price, William (Rugby)
Silverman, Julius
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Probert, Arthur
Skinner, Dennis
Wallace, George


Rankin, John
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Watkins, David


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Spearing, Nigel
Weitzman, David


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie
Wellbeloved, James


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Stallard, A. W.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Richard, Ivor
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Whitehead, Phillip


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Whitlock, William


Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Strang, Gavin
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Swain, Thomas
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Roper, John
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Rose, Paul B.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rowlands, Edward
Tinn, James
Woof, Robert


Sandelson, Neville
Tomney, Frank



Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Torney, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'ctle-u-Tyne)
Varley, Eric G.
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Dixon, Piers
Holt, Miss Mary


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hordern, Peter


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Drayson, G. B.
Hornby, Richard


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Astor, John
Dykes, Hugh
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Awdry, Daniel
Eden, Sir John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hunt, John


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Iremonger, T. L.


Batsford, Brian
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
James, David


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Eyre, Reginald
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Jessel, Toby


Benyon, W.
Fidler, Michael
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Blaker, Peter




Boardman, Tom (Leicester. S.W.)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jopling, Michael


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Foster, Sir John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fowler, Norman
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bowden, Andrew
Fox, Marcus
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Braine Sir Bernard
Fry, Peter
Kershaw, Anthony


Bray, Ronald
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Kimball, Marcus


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gardner, Edward
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gibson-Watt, David
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kinsey, J. R.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kirk, Peter


Bryan, Sir Paul
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kitson, Timothy


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Buck, Antony
Goodhart, Philip
Knox, David


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Goodhew, Victor
Lambton, Lord


Campbell, Rt. Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Gorst, John
Lamont, Norman


Carlisle, Mark
Gower, Raymond
Lane, David


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Channon, Paul
Gray, Hamish
Le Marchant, Spencer


Chapman, Sydney
Green, Alan
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Grieve, Percy
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Churchill, W. S.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J
Loveridge, John


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Grylls, Michael
Luce, R. N.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gummer, Selwyn
MacArthur, Ian


Cockeram, Eric
Gurden, Harold
McCrindle, R. A.


Cooke, Robert
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
McLaren, Martin


Coombs, Derek
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Cooper, A. E.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)


Cordle, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Corfield Rt. Hn. Frederick
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maddan, Martin


Cormack, Patrick
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Madel, David


Costain, A. P.
Haselhurst, Alan
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Critchley, Julian
Havers, Michael
Mather, Carol


Crouch, David
Hawkins, Paul
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Crowder, F. P.
Hayhoe, Barney
Mawby, Ray


Dalkeith, Earl of
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hicks, Robert
Meyer, Sir Anthony


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Higgins, Terence L.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Hiley, Joseph
Miscampbell, Norman


Dean, Paul
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Digby, Simon (Wingfield
Holland, Philip
Money, Ernle







Monks, Mrs. Connie
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Monro, Hector
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tebbit, Norman


Montgomery, Fergus
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Temple, John M.


More, Jasper
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Ridsdale, Julian
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon. S.)


Morrison, Charles
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Tilney, John


Mudd, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Murton, Oscar
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Trew, Peter


Neave, Airey
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Rost, Peter
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Royle, Anthony
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Normanton, Tom
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Vickers, Dame Joan


Nott, John
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Waddington, David


Onslow, Cranley
Scott, Nicholas
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Sharples, Richard
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Osborn, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wall, Patrick


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Walters, Dennis


Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Simeons, Charles
Ward, Dame Irene


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Sinclair, Sir George
Warren, Kenneth


Pardoe, John
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Parkinson, Cecil
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Peel, John
Soref, Harold
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Percival, Ian
Speed, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Spence, John
Wilkinson, John


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Sproat, Iain
Winterton, Nicholas


Pink, R. Bonner
Stainton, Keith
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Woodnutt, Mark


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Worsley, Marcus


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stokes, John
Younger, Hn. George


Raison, Timothy
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom



Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Tapsell, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Redmond, Robert
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow.Cathcart)
Mr. John Stradling Thomas


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Peart: We are now at the stage where we can make our comments in a wider sense and discuss the workings of the policy with which we are dealing. We have been specifically discussing Clause 6, which deals with the administration of the common agricultural policy which we shall have to adopt over a period of five years. We have had our arguments on the detailed points. I dealt with the aspects of policy in relation to the Commonwealth, and other hon. Members have raised various matters. I would like to deploy in greater detail some of the arguments used in our previous debates. No doubt other hon. Members will put forward their points of view.
There was initially an argument about whether we had criticised the common agricultural policy during our period of office as a Labour Government. I have a quotation here from which I have read on previous occasions. The then Foreign Secretary, now Lord George-Brown, stated the case at a meeting of Western European Union at The Hague on 4th July, 1967. He later explained this to

a conference—I quoted it in the House—when he said:
I put the application on the table. It anybody reads it he will see I did in fact reserve all the major issues that the delegates have come to the rostrum to make today. I reserved them specifically for negotiations. I reserved agriculture. I reserved the CAP"—
He emphasised this because he said:
the common agricultural policy, and the levies. I reserved the sugar producers, specifically and in terms. I reserved these positions for negotiation and I said specifically and in terms that we would decide whether to go on at the end of the day in the light of the negotiations on these issues."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 22nd October, 1971; Vol. 823, c. 1103.]

Sir F. Maclean: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that that was the exact basis on which my right hon. and learned Friend made the application? Would he not further agree that Lord George-Brown has since said that the terms obtained by my right hon. and learned Friend are every bit as good as he could have hoped for?

Mr. Peart: Lord George-Brown may have expressed that opinion but the fact was that we did not negotiate the terms. I am merely quoting what was our position, what was stated by Lord George-Brown when he was Foreign Secretary


A lot of people give the impression that we did not reserve our position. I have always been sceptical about the common agricultural policy. I recognise that there has been an argument to the effect that if we go into the Community we must inevitably concede in agriculture to get certain industrial benefits. I have never liked that point, obviously, as an agricultural Minister, but I recognise that it has been put.

Mr. Powell: Is it not a material fact that right hon. Members opposite in their White Paper of February, 1970, when discussing the effect on the balance of payments of the common agricultural policy said,
There is just not a sufficient basis, in advance of negotiations, for making reliable assumptions about either its cost or our share of it.
Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that that shows that the position was still reserved in February, 1970?

Mr. Peart: I accept that. We may argue about estimates in different white Papers. I was responsible for the first agricultural White Paper and I remember presenting it to the House. I tried to explain objectively the case of the Government and the impact that our entry to the Community would have on the consumer and on the balance of payments position. It is still true today to say that it will have a considerable effect. This is one of the arguments I am using.
8.15 p.m.
It has been estimated in the present White Paper that the effect on the balance of payments will be approximately £250 million a year. Some people argue with great force that it will be much higher, and I think they are right. I could not commit myself to a specific figure; that is always dangerous, particularly when discussing commodities such as food and agricultural products in a broad sense. I have always been rather careful about making specific estimates, but there were broad estimates, and I agree that these were in the White Paper.

Mr. Rippon: Could I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) shows the contrary to what

he asserted? Does it not show that the Labour Government had in effect said "We must come to terms with the common agricultural policy", and that all that was at issue was what the estimate of cost might be, which we have all agreed is difficult to make?

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not really followed our discussions or has not read the White Paper. I am sure that he is completely wrong. I take the viewpoint of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). We are arguing today about a policy which some people say we must adopt even though they dislike it. They argue that this was because we would have advantages in other economic areas. I have heard that so often. It is said that we shall be able to challenge, for example, the European motor car industry, we shall win markets in Europe or our future will be waltzing down an autobahn selling refrigerators.
I may be wrong about this but I still believe that it is accepted by many people who favour entry that there are difficulties with agriculture. Even those who are fanatically in support of European entry must know that inevitably there will be burdens on the consumer. This is spelled out in the White Paper.

Mr. James Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week, in reply to a Question tabled by me dealing with the rise in the price of many of our indispensable basic foodstuffs between 1970 and April of this year, I was told that they had already doubled in price, thus paving the way for our entry into the high-price Common Market?

Mr. Peart: I accept that. The White Paper, at paragraph 88 says:
It is estimated that membership will affect food prices gradually over a period of six years with an increase of about 2½ per cent. each year in retail prices.
This figure has been altered in view of later developments. I believe that the Minister gave another figure. As the White Paper says:
As food accounts for about a quarter of total consumer expenditure, the effect on the cost of living would be about ½per cent. each year.…It will vary from commodity to commodity. Some, such as butter, cheese and


beef, are likely to rise by significantly more than the average; others, such as bread, flour and eggs, by about the average; and others, such as milk, fish, oils and fats, tea and coffee should show little change in price. For some fruit and vegetables prices should be lower at certain times of the year. Moreover, the increase in food prices will be offset to some extent by lower prices for other consumer goods as a result of tariff reductions.
The simple fact is that there will be a burden on the consumer. This was admitted because the Government say that they will protect the lower income groups, the pensioners, with social security income adjustments. We have never had specific details about how they will do that or how they will differentiate between different sections. But there will be a heavy burden on the consumer. Even though hon. Members may support entry into Europe, that must be admitted. One has only to compare an average shopping basket. One of our leading Sunday newspapers did that last week. It was very effective propaganda from a newspaper which is not sympathetic to our point of view. But it showed our system in a favourable light. It showed that the British housewife, the housewife in London, has better food prices. She has access to better food, in general, than many housewives in Europe and the rest of the world.
I am not ashamed to defend the system with which I was proud to be associated in the post-war period as a very humble Parliamentary Private Secretary to Tom Williams, who was a great Minister of Agriculture. Since then that system has enabled us to give assured markets and guaranteed prices to farmers. That system was built on by a Conservative Administration, as I have argued earlier. The deficiency payments system was introduced. We had also a structural scheme in this country which was second to none. I refer to the partnership between the Government and industry, something that is unique in the agricultural world.
This now is to go. But hon. Members must remember that while this Bill is going through Parliament another Bill has yet to come before the House of Commons on Report. Some of my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), who is a member of the Committee dealing with that Bill, know that we shall scrutinise it because it is pre-

paring the way for entry into Europe. We have seen how the county agricultural executive system which flowed from the 1947 Act is to be dismantled. That was a system whereby we had farmers' representatives sitting on county committees, three from the National Farmers Union, two from the agricultural workers union and two from the Country Landowners Association. It enabled the farming community to have something unique. The 1947 Act meant assured markets and guaranteed prices. It enabled our farming community to do something it had never done before: to undertake a period of long-term planning and development. Whatever the arguments about different price review awards, this was admired by many farming and political leaders in other parts of the world.

Mr. James Johnson: Is it not a fact that even Dr. Mansholt has shown admiration for this system? I have heard him speaking at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg when he has said that this would be a good thing to work towards inside the Community.

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend is right. I have quotations dealing with Dr. Mansholt's views. Dr. Mansholt used to be the Commissioner for Agriculture but now has a higher job in the Community. He has always said this. I have here an old cutting which I have quoted previously. It is a cutting from The Times of 27th March, 1971:
Dr. Sicco Mansholt, vice-President in charge of agriculture…said today that from 1973 the Six might have to introduce a system of aid to farmers involving direct grants and something similar to Britain's current system of deficiency payments if they wished to provide the farming community with a reasonable living.
The report continues:
Dr. Mansholt told a press conference that it would be unreasonable to expect Britain to accept further price rises—of the sort agreed yesterday by the Common Market ministers in an attempt to help their farmers—during the time Britain was trying to adjust to the much higher Community price levels. Because of this the EEC could not go on relying on prices alone to guarantee farmers' incomes.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Surely that demonstrates a will and desire on the part of the Community to change.

Mr. Peart: It shows that there is a desire on the part of farming leaders in Europe to change to our system. As I


have always argued, will not it be ironical that we shall destroy a system which has worked in order to adopt a system which is not working in Europe and then probably, later, because of men like Dr. Mansholt, adopt a system we have destroyed? What a strange irony of history it is that this could well happen. However, that is the argument.
I am suggesting that the common agricultural policy imposes burdens on the consumer. No one will deny that. I believe also that even from the point of view of the producer there will be uncertainty. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins), in an earlier debate, spelt out in detail some of the commodities which will be affected. For example, what will happen to the bacon sharing agreement and to some of the monopoly powers of some of our statutory boards? There is still uncertainty about the Milk Marketing Board's position. I give those as examples. Again, we never seem to hear much about horticulture in Parliament. This section of the industry accounts for a fifth of agricultural products. Many horticulturists are very worried about our entry into the Community, for obvious reasons. I need not spell out the details because they are known to the Government, who have received representations on this matter over the years.
In many activities we see uncertainty. I have here what has become a classical editorial in the Farmers Weekly. This one was published last year. The Farmers Weekly could not be regarded as a defender of the Labour Party or the Labour Opposition, or to have any pretentions to Socialist theory or dogma. The editorial of 22nd October, 1971, just before the main debate about joining the Community, the debate on the principle, is entitled, "Who's fooling whom?" The editorial states:
Our interview with Dr. Mansholt makes it plain that the Government have been less than frank with the farming community on crucial issues. Despite soothing but largely meaningless words, no decisions have been taken on the future of the Milk Board.
The editorial continues:
It is now obvious that the Europeans have not even begun to consider the matter.
The editorial argues:
Where are the concrete provisions for maintaining stability of British farm commodity markets during the transition period?

The article mentions the bacon industry and the price review, which we have discussed in greater detail on an Amendment.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy was very kind when he wrote to me on this matter after I questioned him, but I still do not think that he understands the difference between the sort of arrangement in the Treaty of Accession, which I quoted in a previous debate, and the price review procedure under our system. It is a different thing altogether. After all, the prices will be determined in Brussels. The new Intervention Board will have to carry out this policy. That is why the Board has been created—this new State Department announced by the Minister, at a stroke. It will be interesting to read about it and to probe what it means in terms of manpower. I have just been reading that the Commission will have fewer civil servants and that some of them will make way for ours. What will happen to the Intervention Board? What about staffing and public expenditure—the favourite cry of some hon. Members? What about the civil servants?
I remember getting into trouble from one hon. Member because I dared to say that civil servants in Brussels were running around like cockroaches. What about the saving here, and the dangers of a bureaucracy and the failure to have a check? These are important matters. I say to members of the farming community, "The consumer will be affected; but, make no mistake, you could be affected, too." After all, people are eating less. The recent national food survey shows that that is so. Many of the low income group are now buying less food and cheaper food, mince instead of other products. No doubt the Minister will be called the Minister for Mince. I am not denying that it is good meat, but mince is being bought instead of good red meat. There has undoubtedly been a saving.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): rose—

Mr. Peart: We shall deal with this matter on food prices on Monday, so I will wait for that and deploy the argument in another way. I do not want to go beyond "Clause stand part". I am merely arguing about the policy of the


Government, and saying that if there is consumer resistance inevitably the farmer will be affected. Recently when the Government made a decision about liquid milk for schoolchildren many National Farmers Union branches made their protests because in the end it would affect production.

[SIR ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]

8.30 p.m.

I say to the farming community what I said on the last Amendment. The Community supporters in the House may dangle before the eyes of the producers the promised land and higher prices, but there will be higher feed costs, there will be pressures here and there, and, as I have recently said, I see no enthusiasm from the Community producers who produce the commodities which the European Community needs.

There has been no enthusiasm from the producers. In fact, over a period of years we have seen violent protests. My goodness, the row that I had over my first Price Review was nothing like that which we have seen emerging from Brussels, when the farmers marched their cows into the debating chamber and demonstrated. I warn hon. Members not to assume that they will have an easy ride with the farming community because they think this is the promised land and because the Prime Minister is so dedicated to Europe and all that it means.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: The right hon. Gentleman was painting a picture of European farmers in wild rebellion to make us terrified. The fact remains that they were pressing for even higher prices because their own scale of business is usually so much smaller. The prices they were protesting against were considerably higher than ours, and perfectly satisfactory to our industry.

Mr. Peart: Prices are relative, and they had relatively higher costs and were facing great difficulties and hardship. Many of them were impoverished. There is a terrible amount of peasant farming in operation. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) knows that.
If we adopt the Clause, which gives effect to the common agricultural policy,

there will be the difficulties and uncertainties which have been stressed. Above all, the system, as I have argued, needs changing. I have quoted Dr. Mansholt, who is still connected with the Commission, for whom I have a great admiration. I have met him on many occasions. I refer now to his successor, who was here a few days ago, Signor Scarascia-Mugnozza—[Laughter.] That is my army training in Italy. Anyway, Signor Scarascia-Mugnozza, the member of the European Commission responsible for agriculture, predicted a gradual revision in the EEC's agricultural policy in Brussels. He believed that the old emphasis on high prices as the principal means of supporting farmers would give way to a greater emphasis on structural reforms.
He went on to pay tribute to what could emerge. In other words, he believed that there should be a change. I think that is accepted. Why, even The Times, not very long ago, argued that we should be able to negotiate the Common Market agricultural policy and no longer should the Economic Community regard it as non-negotiable. We know the reason why the French will not allow it to be otherwise. I think most hon. Members are aware of that. However, we agree that inevitably it should be negotiable. Even some of my hon. Friends who believe in Europe accept that. I have on many occasions quoted my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). In an address organised by the Labour Committee for Europe my right hon. Friend said:
The Community has undoubtedly one ugly aspect to its face, the working of some aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy. They certainly should not be proud of this—indeed, a bit of plastic surgery would not come amiss.
I agree with those very eloquent words. So we can and do argue that this policy has not worked and will have to be adapted.
I believe the real reason why the negotiations have not gone our way is that France has won. There is an obvious reason. This was confirmed by our ambassador in Paris, Sir Christopher Soames, in an article in Figaro, which has often been quoted, in which he said:
Don't forget, it is not just a question of the amount we"—


the British—
pay to the common budget. From the first day, we shall also be buying more and more of our food from you at very much higher prices than we now pay, thus enabling your farmers to realise the promise of expansion by virtue of their preferential access to the biggest food importing market in the world.
How right Sir Christopher Soames was, and how right M. Pompidou was to accept his words. That is why the French believe in the CAP and will not allow us to compromise on it. Even though the German Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Ertl, has again and again criticised the Community's policy, even though the Germans have been lukewarm from the viewpoint of their Minister of Agriculture, this Government have allowed France to dominate the negotiations, and as a result France would not agree to a renegotiation of this section.

Mr. Marten: We all agree that this must be renegotiated. Would not one way to overcome this aspect be for the Government, as they go to the Summit, to say "We will not have Third Reading of the Bill until after the Summit and unless we get a satisfactory renegotiation of the CAP"? If they did that, I believe the country would have great confidence that the Government were standing up for Britain and for sensible policies.

Mr. Peart: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that sound point. I am sure that it would be endorsed by the majority of the British people. I hope this can be pressed upon the Government even now, despite the fact they are assuming there will be no Report stage and are trying to steamroller the Bill through the House of Commons. I hope the Government really will have second thoughts and not be too arrogant on this matter. There are many people still to be converted to their view. I do not believe that the vast majority of the British people accept entry into the Community on the terms negotiated.
There is another aspect of the policy which I believe to be fundamental. I hinted at this earlier on Amendment No. 263. I refer to the effect on world trade. The Community has a managed market, a tariff wall, and a levy system. I cannot understand why the Liberals are enamoured with the system. However, they can explain their own position. They

are divided on this matter, as are the other parties. However, I cannot understand why, because of their traditional liberal approach, they should believe in the managed market and tariff wall which exist in the Community.
I said that the CAP is a dagger at the heart of the Commonwealth. I really mean that. This is a tragedy because I believe in the British Commonwealth. It has so much to offer to the world—the concept of a multi-racial community, the old and the new Commonwealth—and I want it to be strengthened. However, if we give preferential treatment to other countries, as we must if we join the Community, they will have preference and we shall have to differentiate against our traditional food suppliers. This policy—this is not propaganda; it is the choice that hon. Members have to make—will inevitably harm our traditional food suppliers, the Commonwealth. It will harm New Zealand in particular.
I had hoped that we could debate an Amendment dealing with New Zealand's position, but it was not selected. I should like to deploy at greater length on that Amendment the case for New Zealand, as I should like to have done for our fisheries. Spelled out in the Government's White Paper is the effect that the Community will have on New Zealand products. The quantities for New Zealand products are set out in Protocol 18 of the Treaty of Accession, Part I. I will give those for butter for the first five years. The quantities will show a decline. In 1973 the quantity will be 165,811 metric tons; in 1974 it will be 158,902; in 1975 it will be 151,994; in 1976 it will be 145,805; and in 1977 it will be 138,176. I shall not read out all the quantities for cheese but a considerable decline takes place there as well—from 68,558 metric tons in 1973 to 15,240 metric tons in 1977.
Some people may say that this is only cheese and butter. But cheese and butter exports are important to New Zealand. Over the years the New Zealanders have geared their production to our market. As Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food I took part in discussions with the New Zealand Government on trade. I have always been proud that British farmers recognise the place of New Zealand in our market. In addressing


meetings of the National Farmers Union, I have never found any difficulty when I have explained to it the position of our producer friends in New Zealand. Yet New Zealand's products are to be phased down. There is no argument about it. It is all spelled out. That is why they are worried.
We are told that the answer is for New Zealand to diversify its products and markets. That is not easy to do. The New Zealanders have been trying to do it ever since they realised that the time might come when Britain would enter the EEC and the old traditional links would be ended. It is true that the New Zealand Government have accepted the situation, but they have no choice. They are not pleased about it. One only has to read the New Zealand Press to see that the people of New Zealand are not pleased about the agreement. How could they be? Their products are to be phased down, and inevitably there is uncertainty for their primary producers. They are worried and concerned. I have met many New Zealanders. I have been there as Minister. Every hon. Member who knows New Zealand must accept that the New Zealanders are very worried. In March Sir Denis Blundell said that if New Zealand lamb became subject to the common agricultural policy there would be a dramatic fall in demand and a substantial increase in price. No wonder the New Zealanders are worried.
Those who condemn New Zealand for some of its actions should study the position and the danger to its economy. I repeat that I will defend New Zealand. I believe that the British people do not want to let the New Zealanders down because the New Zealanders are British people in the best sense. They have always supported us, both in peace and in war, and we should not let them down. But if we accept the common agricultural policy we shall inevitably be doing so.
I have with me the New Zealand News, a very good little paper which informs British people about New Zealand affairs. In what other newspaper in the world do we find a whole page designed to show the need for the British connection, telling us how New Zealand importers want British goods? Let us not forget that New Zealanders are our people. But we are not going to give preference in the Community to their

products. Instead, we are to give it to French producers who will be given concessions as against our traditional suppliers from New Zealand.
The same situation applies to Australia. I remind the Committee that Australia takes more goods from us than we take from Australia.
The Deputy Prime Minister of Australia visited this country last year. He said:
The White Paper makes no acknowledgment whatever of the difficulties that will be caused for important sectors of Australian agriculture.
According to the Financial Times of 1st July, 1971, the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. William McMahon, said:
…that it was a matter for regret that Britain had not pressed Australia's case with the EEC to an outcome satisfactory to Australia.
I will deal with this matter in more detail next week when we discuss the question of sugar. What is proposed will harm New Zealand and Australia.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Rippon: The right hon. Gentleman might do great harm to people in Australia and New Zealand by making these wild allegations about the arrangements we have made. The arrangements for New Zealand, which are expressed in terms of milk equivalent and have built-in arrangements for continuity, represent, as the New Zealand people and farmers have accepted, the most remarkable trading agreement which any third country has received. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted from the New Zealand News, which is an excellent publication. I will send him a copy of the New Zealand News containing a cartoon showing a shivering lion on the brink of the Channel with the caption "Will Britain have the courage to jump?". New Zealand and Australia accept that what is proposed is good for Britain, good for the Commonwealth and good for Europe.

Mr. Peart: The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not meet the New Zealand and Australian people whom I meet. He is sheltered in an official cocoon, otherwise he would not say such things. If we phase out people's commodities, do not tell me that they are pleased. They are not political masochists. If we phase out some of their products and they lose markets they are bound to be angry.


Small countries like New Zealand cannot afford to lose markets for their dairy products.
If we go into the Common Market we shall give preference to French and German producers as against our traditional suppliers. That is the purpose of entry to the Community. That explains the Europeanism of some people. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should defend it. That is the Government's policy, and he must face the consequences. I could argue about what will happen to the Caribbean, but we shall deal with that subject on another occasion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has negotiated nothing in respect of sugar. The rich sugar beet producers of France and Germany will probably force their viewpoint on the negotiators. The Caribbean and many other parts of the Commonwealth are worried. India has expressed concern. There are dangers in the common agricultural policy.
I should have liked to deal with the subject of fisheries, but I will leave my hon. Friends to deploy that argument in detail.
The common agricultural policy means restrictionism. It has been condemned by the United States and by other countries outside the British Commonwealth, President Nixon, Senator Humphrey, the former Vice-President, and distinguished United States civil servants have argued against the restrictionist policies of the Community. Of course they are restrictionist. They are very selfish. That is why the Community has not signed the International Sugar Agreement. We all know that Britain is to join a selfish, restrictionist Community. But hon. Members says "We shall be in a position to change it". I very much doubt it, because there is a great danger that we are going in on terms accepted by France, which has played a major part in the negotiations.
That may well be true of fisheries policy. The Community, with indecent haste, laid down a common policy just before we negotiated. I still believe that we have not negotiated satisfactorily and that many sections of the inshore fishing industry will be endangered by what we have done. There is great concern about this among large sections of the inshore fishermen.
For these reasons, the Clause should be opposed. In the end it will not be good for Britain. The CAP is a policy which is retrogressive, reactionary, harmful in the long run to the Community, harmful to world trade and harmful to the British people, and it will create uncertainty for the producer.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I want now to make a more general intervention on the whole issue of the CAP. I believe that the CAP is dangerous for three reasons. First, it will lead inevitably to the creation of trading blocs; and, by the creation of trading blocs, it will be deleterious to our objective of world free trade which must be to the interests of Britain. Second, it will push up prices for the British consumer in an alarming fashion. Third, those who say that by getting into the Community they can change the CAP will be attempting to change something which is in Europe's best interests but not in ours. This is why there are many people in Europe who regard our entry into Europe as a positive danger, because we propose to impose on Europe policies which are not suitable to Europe's own best interests.
There is no question but that what is needed more than the Pompidou summit, which may or may not take place, dependent on French good will—it seems from what the French Deputy Foreign Minister has said that, unless the conference is arranged to the French pattern, it will not take place—is for the British Prime Minister to take the initiative and to call a conference of the world temperate food producers. It is in temperate foodstuffs that the trouble lies. Such a conference would be far more constructive than to go and lie down before this great new altar in France and to say," We will come in on any terms". It we want an initiative, this is a very useful one to take.
There is no question but that the world is highly disturbed in its trading relations. It is very worried about the creation of trading blocs. It is appallingly worried, as it should be, by the fact that the whole of what is called the Third World is still selling its products to the industrial world at the same price as 10 years ago; yet the Third World is trying to import from the industrial world tractors, and so forth, which now cost three times as much. This is the true world issue.
It is not a case of just grovelling before Pompidou in Paris on 8th October. It is the issue of real world problems. There should be a conference of the temperate food producers of the world to work out a proper programme and the acceptance of various international agreements for commodities.
My second point relates to the question of the British consumer. I remind the Conservative Party that before now it has been divided, and disastrously divided, on the issue of cheap food for the people. The party was split and divided and destroyed for 20 years on this issue until it was resurrected by Disraeli. Certain members of my party could remember that episode with benefit. I shall remind the Committee of some of the price rises that we can expect in the Common Market. In a previous speech I referred to maize, which is essential for feeding stocks and for expanding beef production in this country. The world price of maize today is £22 a ton. Yet the Common Market price is over £40 a ton and this year it has already been agreed, although world maize prices are falling, that the European price shall rise by 3·2 per cent. over the next 12 months.
There is the example of beef and the recent bull raid into our beef market when there was a shortage of European beef. Because of the policies admitted to being pursued by CAP officials we know that there will be a mounting shortage of beef. And yet there will be a growing mountain of unsaleable butter such is the agronomical genius of those who are directing the policy. Next spring, for all we know, there will be a further raid into our beef market and beef prices, for a short time, will be hitting not the sort of price which is in the Price Review, but the sort of price which has existed in West Germany lately—£22 per cwt. For every penny a pound for meat on the hook the price goes up by 3p to the consumer, because that is how the good God has made the cattle beast.
The price of wheat is some £12 more in Europe than the world price and the support price for barley is higher, too. We are told that these figures must be adjusted over the five-year period so that there will be no increase greater than 2 per cent. in the price of food to the British public. As we used to say in the Army, the Minister's oxometer must be

recalibrated. There is a shortage of certain foods in Europe. Tinned fruit is not a major item in this country but for many it is a luxury on a Sunday. I remember when I was a kid at school that tinned fruit was a great luxury. We imported it from Italy or Australia. I am told by the Australians that under the CAP the price of their tinned fruit, which is roughly competitive with that of Italy at the moment, will rise by 40 per cent. Let us tell that to our constituents. They will enjoy hearing it. Even more they will be glad to hear that Italian fruit production is insufficient to fill the gap when the Australian supply ceases.
There is also the question of long-term contracts. Many countries which would have been prepared to enter into long-term contracts for meat are not now prepared to do so. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Australia and New Zealand. I can think of other areas of the world where meat production could be developed, such as East Africa. I have seen in Ethiopia better cattle land than the Argentine. Are the Ethiopians going to make contracts with us? There is not a chance of it. Think of the potential growth in Australian production. The Australians are now committed to raise 250,000 more tons of meat in the next three or four years. Will any of it come here? No. Will the Argentinians create factories for boning meat on long-term contract to this country? Again, the answer is "No". Therefore, the CAP is a high burden to place on a people already bedevilled by inflation.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Boloney.

Mr. Fraser: "Boloney" is a good Italian word. Perhaps my hon. Friend should be representing the Italians rather than the British people.
Finally, I turn to the far wider problem, the most important problem to do with the CAP and ourselves. The whole of the European economy, the whole of European social life, has been built essentially on the avoidance of major urbanisation. That was the view of General de Gaulle and other people whose views I respect more than those of some hon. Members. General de Gaulle and others in Europe, including Bismarck and all the great men of


Europe, believed that Europe's strength lay essentially in its rural rather than its urban communities. That is not unnatural. We in this country have evolved over hundreds of years without revolution. We have been blessed by the fact that we have had a House of Commons which has defeated the barons and the kings, and even the Socialist Party—[Interruption.]—and the Tories for that matter, and has survived.
But in Europe there has been a sense of danger, of constant movements of troops. There have been wars, including civil wars, and far greater instabilities than we have ever known.—[Interruption.]—Some of my hon. Friends think that this is funny. They have not read their history and do not understand what Europe is about.
Europe is built on decent, rural, peasant society. That is why Europe is strong. Go into any European village and we see the marks of those who have died in war, whatever war it be—and there have been plenty of wars in Europe, far more than we have ever had. That is the basis of European society. I talked before of what Hitler did. The size of the average holding in Germany is 26 acres because the Hitlerian régime saw the need to build up a solid, protective, decent, small, rural, peasant community. From those people came the army, the police, those who preserve order. It is from them that Europe has drawn its strength for the maintenance of the State.
We have had none of these troubles. If we think we can influence Europe to change the whole of its domestic and social policy, to do away with its peasant communities, we should ask Mr. Franz Josef Strauss in Bavaria whether he is prepared to see the peasant disappear, and ask M. Pompidou after his election, which was fought precisely on that issue, whether agricultural reform has gone far enough. Of course, there were areas in the Vosges and are areas in the Midi where a man cannot get a living and of course bigger farms would be made there. But this is the basis of the major European countries—the basis of a strong peasantry with the support of the State.
Put it the other way. Supposing that there were to be the same ratio of manpower per acre on the Continent as there

is in this country. In Italy, there would be 3 million more unemployed. Today, let us face it—I ask my clever hon. Friends who know so much about it to realise this—the whole problem of Western technocracy is that the number of jobs is falling. It will not be easy to find jobs for men put off the land. We do not find it easy to get jobs for men here who are put out of work by Government policy—whether by this party or by the Labour Party.
What about jobs in Europe? What about a reform in Germany to bring about the same sort of agricultural relationship as we have here? There would be one and a half million more jobs to find. These are the facts that we must face. To imagine that we can change these policies is to imagine that we can barge into Europe and upset the Europeans who are set in their own ways.
This is why I feel compelled tonight to oppose this Clause—because CAP is against the world interests of free trade, because it is against the interests of the consumer and because it is against the main interests of Europe.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: While I agree with the conclusions of the historical survey of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), I would challenge some of the details if time allowed. But I want to deal briefly with the subject of the small communities, sometimes in large cities and sometimes in the villages around our coast, who face a threat to their future as a result of the policies with regard to food and particularly fisheries which are being adopted by the Government in this disastrous plea to get into Europe. I want to deal first with the agreement over inshore fishing limits and then with the general question of the future of the deep-sea fleet.
To a great sound of trumpets, an agreement was announced to protect the rights of our inshore fleet for 10 years, up to 1982. Before that date, we were told, we should have a fresh look at the whole problem and come to some more suitably planned system to protect our inshore fishermen. This is what the Government tried to sell the country and the fishermen, but it is a quite incorrect interpretation of what they achieved.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) pointed out when the agreement was first announced, it was nothing more than a derogation from our existing system and after the 10-year period, if there were no agreement, we should return not to the status quo which existed here before we joined the Market but to the status quo in the Market as it was and therefore we should have them fishing up to our beaches. This is a problem for the communities around our coasts, which depend on fishing—particularly the scattered and more remote communities.
The Government argue, "When the time comes for renegotiation, we shall have a veto." But what shall we have a veto over? Have we got a veto? What is the power behind it? What is it designed to prevent? Shall we say, "This veto is to maintain this derogation that we have. No matter what anyone says, we will maintain the present situation."? Or is it a veto to say that we shall return to the system which operated before we acceded? Or is it merely a veto as a bargaining counter? Because the interests of the inshore fishermen are not a great and important matter in our economy, will they be sold and bartered and changed? Are they something that the Government will be prepared to sacrifice? The basic suspicion and fear behind the derogation is that there is no protection for the inshore fishing communities and for the many isolated communities around our islands.
In terms of investing in small vessels, people will have to look within a span of five to 10 years. If we go into the Common Market and accept this derogation, within a few years all the fears and suspicions will mount and people will be afraid to invest because they will not know what will happen at the end of that period. They will not know where they stand.
The Government have tried to be clever and have said that they will stop foreigners fishing in our waters, not by imposing a limit but by imposing a ban on certain types of gear, certain types of net and certain ways of fishing. Is there a Frenchman, a German or a Dutchman so stupid that once that ban has been imposed he will not adapt his fishing methods so that he can fish in those same grounds? The idea that

merely imposing a ban on certain gear will protect sections of the coast for our own fishermen is ludicrous.
The report of the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council says that the prospects for the industry are reasonable and that there is not a great deal to worry about, but it points a finger at the big question mark hanging over the future of the inshore fleet, the middle water fleet and the deep water fleet on two matters. The first is the desire and application of Iceland to have a 50-mile limit and the second is the effect that this could have upon Norway and Denmark, Norway in particular.
If the Icelanders get their way, whether by recognition of the limits, by recognition of the limitation on catches or by a patchwork quilt arrangement between 12 and 50 mile limits, whatever they get is bound to affect the reaction of the Norwegian Government. Norway is a fellow applicant, and the Norwegian Minister of Fisheries resigned over the fisheries agreement. Nearly 30 per cent. of the population of Norway is dependent on fishing. It is a country where the influence of the fishing community is still strong and powerful, although the number of people involved in the industry has been falling.
If the Icelandic demand is successful, what will the Norwegian fishermen say? They will want to know why they are going into a Community that offers them far less than their own Government have been able to achieve, and the result of a referendum in that country would become very doubtful. The effect that this would have on our own standing within the Common Market and upon the position of our own fishing fleet as Norway pushed out its boundaries would be equally great.
It is wrong for people to take an over-optimistic, unrealistic attitude to the future for our industry. As the boundaries of fishing limits spread outwards from the various countries, the areas to which the big ships go will be either further a field or nearer in. As they come in, so they drive in the middle water vessels which in turn drive in the inshore vessels. The whole of this terrible nationalism about limits, whether they are imposed by an Icelandic agreement or by a Community agreement, can have


the effect only of cutting back and limiting our own fishing industry. People will say, "Look how well you are doing at the moment; look at the profit return on the vessels and the record sums that are being brought in on each trip." But these record sums are being brought in against a background of falling catches and failure to get proper international agreement on conservation of stock.
The overall effect of what is happening under the fishing agreement is that the deep-sea industry cannot make any real guess as to what will be the effect of entry into the Common Market, but there are signs of foreboding. Furthermore, in the inshore industry, because of the threats it faces due to the spreading of limits and with the need to take decisions in the period while the derogation exists, there can be only fear and worry.
Although this is not the major item in any discussion of food policy in our community, on our island for many of our small communities who live in remote areas, scattered islands, and for parts of communities in large cities which earn their living from the sea, the whole of the policy which is being adopted by the Government could be and will be disastrous.

9.15 p.m.

Sir F. Maclean: I hope the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) will forgive me for not following him on his interesting and well-reasoned fishing expedition. Instead, I shall try to bring the debate back to pure agriculture.
Listening to the speeches of some hon. Members, one would really think that for the last 25 years the British farmer had not had a worry in the world; that, to use a famous phrase, he had been feather-bedded against all the stresses and strains of modern life. But in fact this is not so. For years, under successive Governments, farmers have not been getting a fair return for the work they do, for the investment they make or in respect of their ever-increasing productivity; and it must be stressed that productivity in agriculture has been increased more than that of almost any other.
The right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) appeared to be particularly attached to the old Annual Price

Review and to regard it as the be all and end all of everything and the answer to all our problems. I have nothing against the Annual Price Review, I do not think it is a bad thing, but from the farmer's point of view, it certainly has not proved to be 100 per cent. efficient over the last 25 years. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman himself recalled the appalling row he had with the farmers over his own first Price Review, and I am sure my right hon. Friend would sympathise with him, though he on the whole has had a smoother passage. Indeed, most Ministers of Agriculture have had rough times with the NFU—and that is not because the NFU are a particularly unreasonable body of men. Indeed, I should have thought they were more reasonable than most people.
Agricultural wages, compared with other wages, are very low, but those wages and other costs take enough of a farmer's profits to leave him with little over to live on. To take one example, between 1960 and 1970 lamb prices hardly moved at all—indeed, over the ten years they may even have moved slightly down. On the other hand, we all know what happened to other prices during those 10 years—and I have taken 10 years which were divided more or less equally between the two parties in Government. Agricultural wages, though still too low, the costs of fuel, feeding stuffs, commodities like tractors and motor cars, the price of land, and the cost of living all went shooting up.
Consider the case of a small hill farmer, whether a tenant farmer or one who has managed to buy an extremely expensive farm, probably working on his own or possibly employing one man. In the years since the war, whatever the Price Review, there will have been many years when he will have been lucky to earn a farm labourer's wage at the end of the day, and he will have had risks to take that a farm labourer would not have had for his £20 a week or whatever it may have been, notably the risk of earning nothing at all.
I feel sure that the overwhelming majority of British farmers—including hill farmers, of whom I am one—have been right after a lot of careful consideration to come down in favour of entry. In my view they are right to believe that British agriculture is bound to benefit from the


bigger market that it will have in Europe, and I am certain that the NFU is right to estimate an expansion of output worth £400 million.
That will help everyone. A more prosperous farming community will be able to pay higher wages, and by expanding production and producing more home grown food will also be able to make an even bigger contribution than it does at present to the balance of payments about which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are always going on—

Mr. Ron Lewis: What about prices?

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the point that 60 per cent. of the net income earned by hill farmers is represented by grants and subsidies, and that up to the moment the Minister has not seen fit to give specific assurances about the future of those grants and subsidies, representing, as they do, more than half the net income of hill farmers? Certainly hill farmers in Wales do not consider their future to be rosy or in any way safeguarded on Britain's entry into the Common Market.

Sir F. Maclean: I have myself heard my right hon. Friend the Minister give what seemed to me to be firm, specific assurances on this point, and I am quite prepared to accept them. I do not think that there is any harm in reminding my right hon. Friend of them every now and again, and perhaps he will be good enough to repeat them at the end of the debate.
When I was listening to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton), I was surprised that he, too, cast doubts on the future of hill fanners. I feel that the future for the hill farmer is fairly rosy. In fact, I should have said that it was rosier than that of some other farmers because, after all, hill farmers are not as dependent as others are on bought-in high-priced feeding-stuffs. For the most part they are dependent on grass which they grow themselves.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) mentioned higher prices. My belief is that the increase in prices about which we have all been told, and about which the Government have been quite frank, will be more than offset by the reduction in taxation that will be made pos-

sible by phasing out the existing support scheme which costs the taxpayer about £150 million a year.
Hon. Members opposite keep suggesting that CAP only exists to subsidise inefficient French farmers. I do not think that there could be any greater mistake. For one thing, the greater part of agricultural expenditure is on market support which will benefit our farmers just as much as it will the French, and then, as European farming is progressively rationalised, as it will be under the Mansholt Plan, less money will be required for relatively inefficient farmers, or for farmers with uneconomic units, and an increasingly high proportion of the common budget will be available for regional policies, industrial development and other similar causes which should be as close to the heart of the hon. Member for Renfrew. West (Mr. Buchan), as they are to mine.
Already considerable progress has been made in this direction. In the' fifties and' sixties, despite a reduction in the area of land used, and despite a sharp reduction in the labour force—about 40 per cent.—there has been a large increase in agricultural productivity in Europe.
That is partly the result of increased investment, in machinery and stock, but also the result of technological advance and of rationalisation. This is a process which is continuing, and will continue, and it seems to me that in the long run this is bound to lead to a more prosperous European agriculture industry and to a corresponding increase in the funds available for other purposes.
During the debates that we have had on the Clause I have once again been struck by three things. First, by the deep dislike and distrust shown by right hon. and hon. Members who oppose entry of the Governments, countries and peoples who compose the Community, with all of whom incidentally we are already allied under NATO and WEU.

[MR. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On that point, did the hon. Gentleman see in yesterday's Daily Express that the Dutch Queen made a speech recently in which she said that she would like to see an increase of


Atlantic alliance activities in the EEC countries, which very much upset President Pompidou? He was very annoyed with Her Majesty the Dutch Queen. It would appear that the EEC is not so much in favour of the Atlantic alliance as the hon. Member is saying.

Sir F. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. Member because that brings me to the next point.

Mr. Buchan: This suggestion should be rebutted. Nothing has been said from this Front Bench or on this side of the Committee about a dislike of the European people. On the contrary, our argument is that what we are defending is as much in the interest of the European people as it is in our interest.

Sir F. Maclean: Then the hon. Gentleman has not made clear what he is defending. I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) for raising this question about the Queen of the Netherlands, because the second thing that amazes me is the refusal of opponents of entry to accept that Europe is not monolithic and, once we are in Europe we shall be able to influence policy just as much as and probably more than anyone else. The right hon. Member for Workington spoke of Dr. Mansholt and his affection for our Annual Price Review. That is an indication that once we get into the Community there is a hope that the right hon. Member may, if he is lucky, even be able to get something like his dear old Price Review again. He also mentioned structural changes which had been advocated in Europe. These are things that, once we get in, we shall be able to work on, but hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to accept this.
The last thing that struck me was the complete failure of opponents to entry to advance any sort of alternative policy or alternative solution for agriculture or anything else.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Russell Johnston: rose—

Mr. James Johnson: rose—

Hon. Members: Which one?

The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Russell Johnston.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Common Market preference!

Mr. Russell Johnston: The right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) in his speech today asked how it was that the Liberal Party could ever find itself defending the common agricultural policy and I want to say something about this, because it is right that I should.
Before doing that, there are two points to which I wish to make passing reference. The first is this question about the lack of time because of the guillotine. I honestly think there is a little bit of humbug creeping into the debate. I have attended most of the debates, and there are certain faces I am getting to know very well, and they are a fairly limited section. They are not particularly noteworthy for being handsome, but they are certainly noteworthy for their faithfulness. If this debate were galvanising the whole Committee, the attendance tonight would be rather different.
The second question to which I want to refer briefly is that of parliamentary control, which has arisen tonight as it has in the debates on many Amendments to other Clauses at other times. I want to touch for an instant on Amendment No. 268, proposed by the right hon. Member for Workington, though he did not particularly dwell on it. That Amendment was concerned with the following part of the Clause:
subject to the direction and control of the Ministers, with such functions as they may from time to time determine"—
that is to say, that the Convention Board shall operate—
subject to the direction and control of the Ministers, with such functions as they may from time to time determine".
The right hon. Member wanted to substitute for the word" they" the word" Parliament", which one would have thought was very fair and reasonable. I shall not embark upon the argument about whether it is necessary that that be fitted into the Bill. But I remind the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great respect, that a Select Committee on Agriculture was set up in his time with the objective and intention of endeavouring to exercise some control of the executive of the time, of which he was a


member. That Select Committee did not last particularly long, because the executive resisted it—and the right hon. Member was a member of that executive. In talking about and criticising the control of the executive, let us not be one-sided. The right hon. Gentleman, in his day, was responsible for snuffing an attempt to do what he is seeking to write into the Bill.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I was a member of that Select Committee. Would the hon. Member accept my assurance that that Committee sat for about nine months and assiduously dealt with the question before it, namely the adequacy or otherwise of Her Majesty's Government's preparations for entry into the European Economic Community? The Committee compiled a full report. It was only when the Committee was embarking upon a further and different study and when there was a problem of staffing numerous Select Committees then sitting that it was decided that it would be only proper to enable the resources of the House to be redirected to another subject.

Mr. Johnston: With great respect, I think that after the nine months the child tended to be aborted rather than born.
I refer briefly to fishing, which is extremely important. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), if I remember correctly, referred to the "terrible nationalism about limits" which is affecting us. Here there is a need to work out in Europe a rational conservation policy related to the reliance of existing fishing communities on working grounds. Whereas the commencement of the fishing negotiations disturbed me deeply, as it disturbed a great many other hon. Members, I think that the final outcome was not unreasonable and that the future is probably on our side.
Turning to the common agricultural policy, which is what we are talking about basically, three factors are involved: first, the farmers, the producers; second, the consumers; and third, the country generally. Generalisations about agriculture are very dangerous because one needs to talk about agriculture commodity by commodity. I notice

that the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) has returned to the Chamber. I thought that his rhetoric rather outran his reason during his contribution to the debate.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It was the other way round, the reverse.

Mr. Johnston: I shall return to some of the right hon. Gentleman's points shortly. I do not think he would deny that the general reaction of the agricultural community towards entry into Europe—I admit that there are variations according to the commodity—has been favourable.

Mr. Lewis: Who said so?

Mr. Johnston: My own National Farmers Union, for a start.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that the agricultural workers' union also has some interest in the agriculture industry. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that it is all right for only the farmers to speak. Those who work in agriculture also have a union, the views of which count just as much as, if not more, than those of the NFU. The agricultural workers' union is not in favour.

Mr. Johnston: All I said was that in the main the producers are in favour.

Mr. Lewis: No, they are not.

Mr. Johnston: Why was there a CAP in the first place? First, there was a problem in the number of people working on the land in Europe, particularly in France and, to some extent, in Germany. The right hon. Member for Workington said that there was still a terrible amount of peasant farming in operation in Europe. Indeed, the CAP has been largely directed towards reducing this. In that sense, the CAP has had a social or regional objective which should not be overlooked or forgotten. It reduced the number of people in agriculture in the Community between 1958 and 1971 by 7½ million. That is a lot of people. It was a considerable social upheaval which had somehow or other to be supported and covered in that way.
Secondly, there was the attempt at self-sufficiency in temperate foodstuffs. There has been a lot of talk about that, and I


will return briefly to that matter in a moment.
Thirdly, there was the attempt to raise the living standards of farmers in Europe to the living standards of the industrial workers. That was not an unreasonable objective.
What about the objections and the criticisms of the CAP with so many hon. Members have made? Many of them are valid, but I find it increasingly difficult to see what else the Governments in the Community could have done when faced with the problem with which they were faced. There is the criticism of the surpluses, which has not been heard so often in the debates today. It has not been such a serious problem in the last year, but it has at times undoubtedly been a serious problem. There is the question of high prices; but the fact is that high prices were the rule rather than the exception in the Community, by comparison with ourselves, before the Community was instituted. With great respect to hon. Members, there is a fair amount of humbug in the argument about the cheap food policy.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: From the Liberals, that is something.

Mr. Johnston: Let me develop my argument briefly. We accept that indirect taxation bears more heavily on the poor than does direct taxation.

Mr. Lewis: The old Liberals will turn in their graves.

Mr. Johnston: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would return to his grave. Equally, in logical terms it could well be argued that a cheap food policy is a subsidy to the rich within the Community, and, to a large extent, to the rich in the producer countries abroad. In the end it seems to be much more rational to reach reality in terms of food prices and to compensate for that through credit taxation. I am happy to see that the Chancellor is moving in that direction.
It is all very well for us continually to talk about the underdeveloped countries and, indeed, the Commonwealth. I shall not argue whether the EEC contributes more than we do. One can exchange statistics about that for a long time, but it is marginal. The amount that the

developed world gives to the underdeveloped world is very little. If hon. Members pop up and down and complain that we are creating a protectionist agricultural community in Western Europe, that may well be true, but at the end of the day hon. Members often say that we must have the tomato growers, the peach growers and all the other sectors protected. In other words, it is all very well that the richer members of the world should show their sympathy for the underdeveloped world, but in reality we have all done very little. There is not much substance in that argument.
One of the basic risks to farmers in this country of the cheap food policy is that if any Government were faced with a recession they would readily and quickly—it has happened before—allow in cheap food from outside and allow the farmers to face the consequences. That risk exists, and it all the more exists when one is dealing with the farming community which represents only 3 per cent. of the population. That is a risk which many NFU people have emphasised to me from time to time.

Mr. Deakins: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how keeping out cheap food from overseas in a recession in some way protects the interests of the majority of the community who obviously benefit from cheap food?

Mr. Johnston: I do not deny that. I am saying that, from the point of view of the farmers, the producers, to allow in a mass of cheap food obviously affects their income. Of course it is advantageous to the majority of consumers.
Despite the shortcomings of the CAP, we should not overlook the social benefits that it has brought to many people in Western Europe. The most effective speech I can recall throughout all the debates on this subject was that made quite early on by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) in which he pointed to the difficult areas of France and Germany and posed the question: is it not right that any Government or organisation should seek to relieve these people of their poverty and ease them into a new situation as best they can?

Mr. Marten: Why should the British pay for it?

Mr. Johnston: That is the next question, which the hon. Gentleman, who has been consistent in his views throughout, so rightly poses. The only answer which can fairly be given is that, although we are giving in this area, elsewhere we hope to be taking. When we enter the Community we cannot expect to have every single thing we want, much as certain hon. Members might wish it. We are entering Europe in the hope and belief that it will be advantageous to this country and will enable fair decisions across Europe. Whereas in the immediate future the CAP will undoubtedly prove quite expensive, equally the possibilities of increased industrial exports and potential gain from a developed regional policy, of which little has so far been spoken, should, if everything is fair, balance things out.
I readily admit that the CAP was designed to suit the Six. After all, they designed it. That means axiomatically that it does not suit us. It can be argued, as the Liberals argue, that if we had gone in earlier it might have been different. However, I do not see that it could have been all that different because the problem remains. If we want to take this step, we must take it now and adapt, as can be done.
It is not, as the right hon. Member for Workington and hon. Members on both sides who are against the idea of entry are prone to say, a question of Brussels telling us what to do. If we are involved in Brussels, we are a party to any decision. It is not a question of somebody outside telling us what to do; it is a question of a decision being arrived at, to which we are a party.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is not. We are 10 per cent. of the whole.

Mr. Johnston: In ideal terms there will be a continuing argument about protectionism and the fact that the agricultural community is a relatively close community. In the end I believe the Community's prosperity depends on effective free trade; so it cannot, even if it were so minded, pursue a narrow policy of protectionism as that would be cutting off its nose to spite its face. I do not believe that will happen. I believe that, despite its shortcomings, the common agricultural policy is part of the total package of

Europe and is worth supporting, which is why I am doing so.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: I agree very much with the major part of the speech of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston). I can only speak for the farmers of Norfolk in saying that they look forward with great enthusiasm to going into the EEC and benefiting from the higher farm gate prices which will be available to them.
Many of us on both sides of the Committee recognise that the common agricultural policy has some considerable disadvantages, but I think also that those of us who have visited Brussels have increasingly become of the opinion that the officials there are beginning to recognise the need over a period to change the common agricultural policy as the social situation in Europe changes. As the proportion of agricultural workers on the land is reduced, so they realise that it will be necessary to replace a policy which up to now has suited Europe but which they recognise will not suit it entirely in the future. From the point of view of timing, it is not a bad time for us to go in when Europeans are beginning to recognise the shortcomings of their existing policy and are anxious to benefit from our experience of running a quite different policy in quite different circumstances. It follows, therefore, that the contribution that our officials in Brussels will be able to make will be considerable and of great benefit to the Community as a whole over a long period.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend some questions which I feel sure will be of interest to the Committee as a whole. Many of us welcomed his exposition of the details of the new Intervention Board's structure and functions and also his undertaking that the board will maintain close links with industry through various advisory committees. I hope that he will be able tonight to spell out how many of these committees there will be and what their functions will be. I hope he will consider—I am sure he already has—whether horticulture is a section of the agricultural industry which might not benefit particularly from being serviced by such a committee.
In particular, I would like to know how my right hon. Friend intends that the Intervention Board should act


to intervene against short-term market disruptions. He is on record as having pledged the Government to act very swiftly to deal with short-term market disruptions for horticultural produce, and I should be interested to know whether he envisages that one of the advisory committees should be part of the price-watching machinery which will be so essential if action is to be taken swiftly to deal with threatened disruption coming from imported horticultural produce.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will go into these and related matters in some detail because some of us were disappointed that the debate on the first Amendment we discussed today was somewhat truncated in the middle of what was for us the most vital part of today's proceedings.

Mr. Roland Moyle: There are few arguments in favour of the common agricultural policy, but possibly the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) made one of them. I would not be positive about that, however, because I am no expert in argiculture policy. I have not trespassed in the debates of the Committee before today because I am completely confident in the ability of my right hon. and hon. Friends to maintain the argument with verve and distinction until the whole idea of joining the Common Market is finally sunk. But this is one of the crunch issues of the Bill.
The Division list in tomorrow's HANSARD will be more than ordinarily important, because, however many arguments they seek to advance, hon. Members who vote for the Clause will be voting for the infliction of high food prices on the British people; and there will be no dodging that fact in the years ahead. People will peruse the Division list tomorrow over many years ahead to see who voted for high food prices and who voted against them and for our present highly intelligent policy of low food prices. The electorate will want to deal summary electoral justice to right hon. and hon. Members who voted for high food prices as they realise what is involved in the policies which the Government are endeavouring to force on the nation.
I do not speak for the farmers. All my farming relatives are Welsh hill farmers. If Scottish hill farmers are happy with the common agricultural policy, Welsh hill farmers are not. But I speak for the people I represent, who are basically urban dwelling people. Most of us on this side of the Committee, and indeed most right hon. Members opposite, represent that sort of people. There are no benefits to be obtained by this country from the adoption of the common agricultural policy for people who live in the great manufacturing and commercial cities of this country. They will be substantial losers. They have not an iota of hope of gaining from start to finish.
What strikes me as the ultimate in lunacy is that we are in a position, as no other country in Western Europe is, to choose between good cheap food from certain overseas countries and high priced food from Europe, and yet, on the advice and leadership of their right hon. Friends, hon. Members opposite are deliberately choosing a high price policy. Why? I have heard no argument which satisfies me that that is an intelligent policy, even for Conservatives. As the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) pointed out, it caused a great deal of turmoil in the Conservative Party years ago. I cannot understand how the Labour Party could possibly vote for a high food price policy. If the Labour Party means anything, it means that it is the party which looks after the less fortunate people whose margins are narrower than those of many others. They have most to lose from a high food price policy. They are the people who live in the cities.
At the moment we get cheap food from producers all over the world. It has been said that this is a result of the exploitation of toiling masses throughout the world. Not long ago, in company with the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), I visited Canada. The hon. Member can bear out every word that I say. In Canada, where there is one of the great granaries of the world, there are two or three acres unfilled for every acre of wheat which is tilled. However efficient the European wheat producers become, the Canadians and Americans will always be able to beat them because they


have the resources, the right type of agriculture and the climate which will enable them to do so.
The United States has a largely self-sufficient economy. They have made tremendous strides and advances over the last few years in the production of food from their great farmlands in the Middle West. America is a tremendously efficient agricultural nation. It has large agricultural surpluses, and it is willing to export them at a cheap price to this country, if we want to buy them, and to the rest of Europe. Yet we are deliberately excluding the import of food from that part of the world, to the great disadvantage of our own people.
10.0 p.m.
So it is not a question of exploiting toiling masses in other countries across the world. Cheap food can be provided by people with a very good standard of living to enhance the standard of living of the British working people.
What is to happen? As the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone said, Britain has a rate of inflation which is historically higher than anything I can remember. Against this background we are deliberately to force up food prices in Britain by as much, overall, as about 50 per cent. in the end. That will lead to what? Right hon. and hon. Members come to the House of Commons day after day, week after week, month after month, preaching the doctrine that we must not have inflationary policies and that we must get rid of inflation. Yet they themselves, by their own action, are taking the biggest step to impose an inflationary situation on Britain of anybody from Lands End to John o'Groats. The biggest contribution which could be made to inflation has been made by right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
Several million people in Britain have such a low income that if prices rise they have no alternative but to seek some more money from somewhere. In a very large number of cases, though in not as many as I would like, they go to their trade union branch and say "We must have an increase in wages to survive on our present low subsistence levels of money." In many cases that is what it is. They must make every penny and every halfpenny count.
Against this background, which leads to inflation, the Government are giving matters a further and more savage twist. If our food prices are to rise, wage claims will increase. Anybody who studies the history of Britain from 1945 to the present day and says that such wage claims will not be conceded even by right hon. Members opposite has a very peculiar view of British economic history since the war. As prices rise, so will wages rise. As wages rise, so will our export prices rise. This is what right hon. and hon. Members opposite always tell us. This is inevitably what will happen.
We shall have a devaluation some time within the next year or two. There is no doubt about that. The purpose of a devaluation is to reduce the price of our exports, but it is also to raise the cost of our imports and to raise the cost of living for the British people, with yet further consequences. This is the inevitable result of the policy of right hon. and hon. Members opposite as evinced in the Clause.
In view of what right hon. and hon. Members opposite have said over the past few months, I find the whole policy totally incomprehensible. In the light of the interests of the British nation, I find it totally incomprehensible. In the light of the interests of my constituents, I find it totally incomprehensible. In the light of everybody who lives in cities and eats food, I find it totally incomprehensible.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), if I understood him correctly, said that if we ran into difficulties the Government would import cheap food from overseas. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right. What I would like the Minister who winds up to do is to say "Yes" to the proposition put by the hon. Member for Inverness, because if the Minister can say "Yes" to that proposition a whole new situation arises. Therefore, I shall await with considerable interest to hear the Minister say that if we run into difficulties we shall import cheap food en masse from overseas, come what may, under the agricultural policy of Europe.

Mr. Charles Morrison: The hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr.


Moyle) said that he found the EEC agricultural policy incomprehensible, but if he took the trouble to do his homework a little more it would be a good deal less incomprehensible to him. He indulged in much scaremongering about the effect on food prices when he should know full well that the rise in prices which will be attributable to Common Market entry will not amount to more than ½ per cent. per annum in the cost of living index during the transitional period.

Mr. David Stoddart: I do not know whether the hon. Member believes that, because very few other people do. Did he read the article in the Sunday Times a fortnight ago, in which the British Society of Food Manufacturers challenged the figure and asked for a meeting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was refused? If he has not read the article, I recommend it to him.

Mr. Morrison: Anybody has the right to challenge the figures, as many have challenged them here today. But on the best evidence which is available to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, the figure which I gave is believed to be correct and I have no doubt that in the course of time it will prove to be so.
Obviously there are some farmers who are against a CAP and who oppose British entry. But from what we have heard in the debate they must come mostly from such places as Walthamstow, Wythenshawe, Workington or Wales.

Mr. Farr: And Leicestershire.

Mr. Morrison: I said, "mostly". I wonder why? Although the CAP is not perfect, and I am the first to admit that in the way that many leading Europeans in recent months have said they would like to see a gradual evolution of the policy, opposition to the CAP stems not least from a misconception about what it is intended to do. It is called the common agricultural policy but, as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) quite rightly said, it is a policy concerned not merely with agriculture but also with regional development and social policy.
It sets out to achieve the aims of Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome, but it must be considered in conjunction with Article 92.
Article 92 is not the bogy which some people, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton), have made it out to be. Only last week I heard an exchange between a Common Market official and another person about Article 92. My right hon. Friend may remember the occasion. The official was asked whether production grants for the hill areas were compatible with Article 92. From his answer I gained the impression that he probably had not even read the Treaty and certainly had not read the Article; and even if he had read it, he did not care very much what it said.
I found that answer encouraging because to me it meant that the officials of the Common Market were interested in interpreting the Articles and terms of the Treaty of Rome as liberally as possible. I had the opportunity to discuss the Article with the official concerned afterwards and he told me that he did know what it said, but that what was important was the interpretation put upon it. He said that if it could be argued that competition was perfect, the production grants and other subsidies would not be allowed, but if it were not perfect they could help to make competition more nearly perfect. That was the gist of his argument.
Even if it can be argued that competition is in any sense perfect in the hill areas or elsewhere, the paragraphs of Article 92, which say that certain aids shall be compatible with the Common Market and certain other aids may be considered to be compatible with the Common Market, seem to me to make it possible to continue with the production grants in the hill areas or elsewhere as long as we wish to do so.
Because of the treble objective of the common agricultural policy, it is almost bound to be an imperfect instrument in a number of ways. It is bound to be a compromise, and it is designed for the Six and not the Ten. I believe that it is developing, and that it will evolve still further. The recent directives approved by the Council of Ministers demonstrate that. It is also worth while contrasting the ability and desire of the


Commission and the Council to evolve their policy with the ultra-conservative approach of the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) towards the old agricultural policy which is to become outdated in this country.
I believe that British entry into the Common Market and the common agricultural policy will be of benefit to the whole of agriculture, including the farmers, farm workers and ancillary industries.

Mr. Buchan: The speech of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) has illustrated something of the entire weakness of the case we have heard today. What he said was to the effect that the common agricultural policy does not mean what it says anyway; that if it does, we shall get someone to give it a liberal interpretation—

Mr. William Ross: If he does not read it.

Mr. Buchan: —and that if we do not get away with that we shall join in order to destroy it. I have not been convinced by the arguments of Conservative Members. Incidentally, I believe I should congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having become Chairman of the Conservative Party Agriculture Committee—Gold help us.
I think the hon. Gentleman said that entry would mean an increase in the cost of living of half of 1 per cent. a year. I assume that he based that on the estimate of 2½ per cent., now modified to 2 per cent., as the increase in food prices. But he should have listened more care fully to Questions on Tuesday, when his right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was asked about the meaning of that 2 per cent. He said, "Of course, I do not really mean that." It is not the first time he has said that sort of thing. He said that about the Prime Minister's promise to cut prices at a stroke, saying that his right hon. Friend did not mean that either. On Tuesday he said that he did not mean it when he assured the British people that entry will result only in a 2 per cent. increase in food prices. He said:
Pensioners are not being asked to accept the assurance that the hon. Gentleman
—my hon. Friend for Oldham, East (Mr. James Lamond)—
 has mentioned.
He was referring to an assurance that the cost of food will go up by only 2 per cent. a year.
The official estimate of the difference between our prices and Community prices, or of adopting Community prices, is not intended as a forecast of what will happen to food prices over the next few years. It is intended merely to show the difference which will apply each year between our prices and Community prices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1972; Vol. 839, c. 224.]

So this whole argument about the 2 per cent. in our prices, leading to a ½ per cent. increase in the cost of living, has nothing to do with food prices or the cost of living but is merely to do with the price gap between Community prices and our own over that period. The Minister has been conning the country, as the White Paper has been conning the country, and people have seen through it. That is the first point which should be stressed.
10.15 p.m.
Second, farming policy is much more important than any consideration of whether it helps the farmers of Norfolk alone. The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler), the other hon. Member who stressed the value of the EEC on the grounds that his farmers in Norfolk will benefit, should do two things. He should analyse the figures for his own farmers a little more closely, but, even more important, he should recognise that farming is not primarily for farmers. Farmers recognise this, too. It is for farmers in so far as farmers are members of the whole community, but farming is for the sake of the whole community.
As soon as we try to defend a policy on agriculture which is based upon only one section of the producers in that industry, we are running into trouble. Above all we are running into trouble in an industrial country where 3 per cent. only of the labour force is based upon farming and the large majority of them are employed in farming and are not the farmers themselves. That is neglecting what the problem is all about.
This is the worst indictment of the British acceptance, unmodified, of the common agricultural policy—that it is based upon a peasant community which even today still has 14 per cent. of the labour force on the land. It is a policy directly contrary to the interests of a country which is primarily an industrial and trading nation. This is the principal crime which the Government have committed in accepting the CAP without achieving basic amendments. That is why it should not be accepted by Britain.
But the policy itself does not make sense by any standards. This is a policy on which the Six have got themselves


hooked. We have heard some of the reasons for this today. No hon. Member defended it on agricultural arguments. The only argument put forward was that it was a useful substitute for a proper social policy. In fact, the policy itself makes no kind of sense.
What the policy does is to tax people for the benefit of paying high prices. There have been protectionist policies in the past, but very rarely has there been a protectionist policy which both used protection to push up prices and then taxed people in order to pay for those high prices, so that people were paying both, and then used that taxation in order to export the surplus. This has never been done before. It is crazy in terms of the true European agricultural needs, and it is dangerous and serious in terms of world trade and the distortions that it causes in world trade.
I clearly remember the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) expressing his horror when he discovered that part of the purpose of the Community budget was to finance the exporting of rice, when so many of the impoverished areas of the world depend upon the export price of rice. This is why the policy is bad even on its own terms.
But the policy is defended by hon. Members opposite on one basis—that it is a good social policy. We are told that the social policy will help the poor peasants. The policy has been in operation for many years and it has been singularly inefficient in achieving that. If it is such a good social policy I cannot understand why Dr. Mansholt is feverishly trying to change it.
That social policy drives many of the poorer peasants off the land not because it is a co-ordinated social policy of the kind we write into our hill land schemes. It drives the peasants off the land because they cannot achieve enough income to enable them to stay there. Therefore, it has not been an efficient social policy.
This is no way in which to handle an agricultural policy. If a social problem is being dealt with, the resettlement of peasants who cannot make an income from a certain acreage or quality of land, it should be dealt with by social measures. One should not cripple an agricultural policy and create a problem in terms of

the Community budget to deal with a social problem. I doubt whether the agricultural policy will solve even the social problem. We may treat the problem with sympathy, but what we should be doing is trying to maximise the amount of disposable food at prices people can afford.
The policy is wrong for Britain for two other reasons. I see no reason why, because a fairly wealthy Europe has a particular social problem, we should be asked to pay for it. If Europe wishes to solve that social problem at its own expense, fair enough, but we are being asked to finance the cost of the Community budget at the rate of 31 per cent. Western Europe is not poor. Indeed we are told that we should each be £7 a week better off if we were in the Common Market. If the people of Europe wish to use their wealth to solve that social problem in this peculiar manner, fair enough, but there is no reason why Britain should be asked to solve it in that way.
Apart from the food costs, our actual contributions to agriculture will be about £450 million. If we want to export our generosity to other agricultural areas let us use it in Asia or in India. I have been reading of the tariff problems which will face India when the United Kingdom joins the Six. Indians are worried about the lack of adequate safeguards for essential Indian interests, and that is bound to affect exports to the United Kingdom. If we are to spend this money on solving a social problem, let us spend it on a social problem for which we have responsibility, which is not true of Europe.
I have referred to the cost of £450 million, but we all know that it will be nearer £700 to £800 million per annum. In the absence of the Prime Minister, we are discussing a policy which will add that amount to our balance of payments at the time when we are looking at the tapes to see what is happening to the pound, just as we used to some years ago. The Prime Minister in his usual petulant fashion blames everyone but himself for the fact that talk of devaluation is in the air. It is extraordinary and quite indefensible that we should be facing a cost of this size.
Another factor is that of the interminable cost spiral. I started by referring to


the rubbish put out by the Chairman of the Conservative Party. The position in regard to the cost of food needs to be emphasised. What has been happening is not so much that the food policy adopted by the Minister of Agriculture has been designed to cushion entry into the Common Market—and we have in mind the dramatic rise in costs which will face all consumers—as that we are now reaching a stage which would have seemed quite incredible two years ago.
Only two years ago we remember election meetings attended by housewives who were worried about the cost of food when we entered the Common Market. We all remember the popular question that was asked, and the Prime Minister used it only two days before he won the election. The question related to the cost of food. Now only two years afterwards we see a headline in the Daily Telegraphof Tuesday, 20th June,
Rising prices may endanger market, Britain is warned.
The article went on to say:
A warning that a sharp acceleration in prices and costs might prevent the expected economic expansion in the Common Market, with Britain as a member, was given by the Market Commission in a report to Treasury officials.
Presenting the report, it said it was worried about the acute rise in prices in Britain.
It shows that in the period January to April this year there was a 7·5 per cent. rise in consumer prices"—
—that is, three times the rise in the same period last year.
Therefore, the Common Market officials themselves are worried about the rising prices in Britain, and we are being told by the Common Market that these may endanger the future possibility of growth.
What a situation! We are told that we must accept the rising costs of foodstuffs and the crazy common agricultural policy, and it is emphasised that this is a burden we must accept because it will mean growth once we get into the Common Market. But, before we even get into the Market, we find that the policies leading up to entry, with all the increasing costs is worrying even the Common Market countries since they

feel that it will prevent them from achieving growth. The whole policy has become self-defeating.
I want briefly to refer to the effect on farmers. I turn to an argument which was expressed by the hon. Member for King's Lynn and also by the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) to the effect that sectors of British farming will benefit. The question of hill fanning has been dealt with by other hon. Members on this side of the Committee. Certainly no hill farmer I have encountered believes he has a major future in the Common Market.
This also applies to the cereal growers. They have assumed as a reasonable figure about £7 or £8 a ton increase on cereals. If there is a 30 million ton production, this will mean an increased income—if this were the only problem—of £90 million to the cereal farmers, but two-thirds of that sum will go to livestock producers. That, in turn, has the effect of increasing the price of beef.
There will also be additional costs. We have seen the beginning of this trend in the cut in the fertiliser figure as set out in the Annual Price Review. One does not know whether this will be a £10 million or £20 million cut, but when this apparent bonanza is broken down it is not such a flattering and favourable figure.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: The hon. Gentleman referred to my speech. I think it is also fair to assume that the pattern of growth of cereals which we have seen in the past is unlikely to be continued in the future. It is possible in my part of the world in West Norfolk that we shall see increased production of grass producing lower-cost feedstuffs for beef, to the infinite benefit of the hind by way of providing an essential break crop which may ensure that ensuing cereal crops are of a higher quality and a higher price.

[MR. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Buchan: One would have thought that they would have done this many years ago. That is an element of good husbandry. For the other year in which they are not growing cereals they are not getting the marvellous new cereal price increase. The £7 per ton that they were


getting has not been given for that year. Let us not be drawn aside with that kind of nebulous argument.
In view of the timetable, I must come quickly to a halt. I refer to only two other matters. First, not only is the policy bad in itself, but it also cripples and hurts especially the poorer sections of our community. Through the Common Market policy and our involvement in contributing to the Community budget, and with the increased cost of food and goods as a result of buying from Europe instead of from our traditional suppliers, there is a transfer of about £500 million straight out of the pockets of workers, who receive an above-average wage of £35 per week and who have an average-sized family. The estimate is £504 million, but I take the round figure of £500million. Half of that goes directly towards the Community budget. The other half, £250 million, goes into the pockets of those earning £4,000 to £5,000 a year and more in this country.
Entrance to the Community means that our poor are being asked to subsidise the social problems of France and to subsidise the wealthy in this country to the tune of £250 million to each group. That is the final indictment of this policy.
I hope that the Minister behaves better than he did earlier today when he delivered a speech the like of which I had never previously heard during a Committee discussion. The material should have been published as a White Paper and should have been properly discussed. It would have been had it come from any other Department. When similar matters came from the Department of Trade and Industry, we had White Papers, for example, on industrial grants, and so on. But to use for this purpose the very scarce time available with this guillotined Measure—the Minister is a member of the Cabinet and supported the guillotine—seems to me a shocking misuse of the right hon. Gentleman's position. It is a piece of irresponsibility in a Minister—but perhaps, not an unaccustomed symbol of the present Government.

Mr. Prior: This has been a debate chiefly on the common agricultural policy. We have have heard at some length the Opposition's views on that policy. It is extraordinary how different the Opposition's views are now from what

they were when the Labour Party was in Government.

Mr. Peart: Not at all.

Mr. Prior: I remember well that in a debate in 1967 the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was talking about having to come to terms with it. I remember well what the right hon. Gentlemen now Lord George-Brown—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Oh, yes. The noble Lord, who is still about, although some hon. Gentlemen would like to forget him, said:
Some of the changes we shall be called on to make, particularly in the field of agriculture, will be very considerable.
The right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), in opening the debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, appeared to have forgotten what was in the White Paper. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Cabinet at the time. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"]. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to say, "No". The right hon. Gentleman has been criticising us all day. Let him sit there and take it for a minute or two. Paragraph 43 of that White Paper states:
For the purposes of illustration, an attempt has been made above to show on various assumptions what the cost of the common agricultural policy might have been for the United Kingdom if we had been a party to the recent agreement by the Community on agricultural financing. But of course we were not, and in the negotiations it will be necessary, not only to settle our starting contribution to the Fund, but also to settle the transitional arrangements under which we approach paying our full share of the recently agreed Community financing arrangements which will be changing from year to year.
If that is not acceptance of the common agricultural policy, I should like to know what is.

Mr. Peart: I explained, in dealing with Lord George-Brown's statement, which he made at the Hague when he was Foreign Secretary, that we always reserved our position on the common agricultural policy. That has been stated. When I presented my White Paper to the House and participated in the debate, I defended our agricultural system and put objectively some of the problems which faced the country, and particularly the consumer. I was strongly criticised by hon. Members for doing


so. The record is there for hon. Members to read. I do not know why the Minister is making heavy weather of this.

Mr. Prior: The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins), in an earlier debate this afternoon, said that we should observe one minute's silence for the end of the bipartisan agricultural policy—as if we had had a bipartisan agricultural policy for years. I have not noticed it, and I have been around for a few years. If we should have had one minute's silence for the end of the bipartisan agricultural policy, we should have had at least five minutes' silence for the end of a bipartisan EEC policy.
The Opposition are schizophrenic. They have spent the whole of this debate, first, arguing that the farmers will do badly because their prices will not rise and, secondly, arguing that prices will go sky-high. They had better make up their mind which way they want it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) and the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) fairly pointed out, there are enormous opportunities for British agriculture to expand, to produce more to fill our home market and to export, too. The vast majority of British farmers are longing to have the opportunity to get on with the job. They have made an extraordinary good start in the last 18 months.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) asked me a number of questions to which I should like to reply briefly. My right hon. Friend asked me, first, what would happen to wool. Wool is not covered by the common agricultural policy, and we are perfectly at liberty to keep on with our deficiency payment arrangements for wool if we wish to do so. I have no intention of making changes at the moment.
My right hon. Friend and other hon. Members also asked me about hill farming. The Government are satisfied that we shall be able to give the assistance needed to maintain reasonable incomes in our hill farming areas. I have only recently arranged for the subsidy scheme to continue. I can tell my right hon. Friend that we recognised the special problems of the hill farms. We think that our method of supporting the hill

farms through the hill cow and hill sheep subsidy has been extremely good and we wish to carry it on.
We have been fortified in this desire by what both Dr. Mansholt and Signor Scarascia-Mugnozza have recently said on this subject. Signor Scarascia-Mugnozza, on a recent visit to Scotland, said:
I firmly intend to stand by the commitment that Dr. Mansholt gave in a truly European spirit.
There is no reason why aid for the hill areas of Britain should not be maintained if Britain enters the Common Market.
The Treaty of Rome allows the EEC to adopt special measures for special situations. Different regions or areas must be considered in their own right and situations must be examined as they arise, because solutions to problems can be found as long as there exists a common will to solve them.
I have no doubt that we shall be able to continue our support for the hill areas.

Sir Robin Turton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm what my hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) said about Article 92 not meaning what it says?

Mr. Prior: I missed what my hon. Friend said. I was out of the Chamber at the time. However, I know that there is a good deal of flexibility in the interpretation of some of the Articles.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton asked about capital grants versus cheap interest rates. At the moment cheap interest rates are national, not Community, policies. I have noted the views of the CLA on the merits of capital grants versus cheap interest rates. We are not proposing any changes at the moment, nor are we under any pressure to make changes. The negotiations which took place in Brussels following our Price Review and the Community's Price Review left the position very much as it is now.
My right hon. Friend asked about the way prices will rise during the transitional period. We shall move our farm gate prices up to Community levels in six stages spread over five years in approximately equal stages each year. Of course, as the market price exceeds the guaranteed price, so the guaranteed price will be phased out.
My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler)


asked about horticulture. We have an understanding that if there is widespread disruption to our market we can go to the Management Committee in Brussels and it will be up to the Commission, on the advice of that Committee, to decide whether action is necessary. We do not move our tariffs until the end of 1973 or the beginning of 1974, so that we shall have time to work this out. Methods of intervention are available which can be operated by producer groups operating, as it were, in conjunction with the Intervention Board. I will write to my hon. Friend and give him further details.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Will my right hon. Friend— —

Mr. Prior: I have only five minutes more. I have given way a great deal already.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I was about to ask whether I might have a copy of the letter which my right hon. Friend is to write to my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler).

Mr. Prior: I turn to the general criticisms of the common agricultural policy. First, I should like to deal with the very robust speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) and the accusation by one hon. Gentleman about what I have said on food prices. I assure the Committee that what the Government have said about rises in food prices due to entry into the Community is exactly the same as in the 1970 White Paper and has been worked out on the same basis as was used for that White Paper. At that time we said that on the basis of the present price differentials at the wholesale stage, and making certain assumptions about distributive and retail margins, the retail price index for food might be 18 to 26 per cent. higher than it would otherwise have been, and this would result in a 4 to 5 per cent. increase in the cost of living index. Since then, the figures have changed, but the same

basis has been applied throughout and the figure is now 12 per cent. [Interruption.] I have been accused of trying to rig the figures.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Shore: rose—

Mr. Prior: I have no time to give way. I have been giving way all day.
Dealing also with high prices, of course we should like to see prices in the Community stabilised, as, for that matter, we should like to see prices stabilised everywhere. But one cannot, before joining the Community, have a great deal of influence over all the prices to be charged. Once one becomes a member, at least one will have some say in deciding the prices.
I come to the subject of world trade, about which my right hon. Friend had a good deal to say. The common agricultural policy and the Community are having their effect on world trade and they will go on doing so whether we are a member of the Community or not. If we want a better world, we must play our part in it—and those are not my words but the words of the Leader of the Opposition in speaking of the common agricultural policy in 1967.
Lastly, I take issue with my right hon. Friend on the question of peace. I certainly could not for one moment accept his version of the wars of Europe and the prospects of peace for this country or for Europe. I am 100 per cent. a pro-Common Marketeer. I have no doubt that our membership will be of great benefit to Britain and to Europe. The common agricultural policy will be changed over a period of years; it is an evolving policy and it has rendered great social benefit and great benefit generally to the farming communities of Europe. As such, we should support it and not keep on damning it.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 272, Noes 267.

Division No. 241.]
AYES
[10.50 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Astor, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton


Allson, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Awdry, Daniel
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Benyon, W.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Balniel, Lord
Berry, Hn. Anthony


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Batsford, Brian
Biggs-Davison, John




Blaker, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Osborn, John


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Boscawen, Robert
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bowden, Andrew
Haselhurst, Alan
Parkinson, Cecil


Braine, Bernard
Havers, Michael
Peel, John


Bray, Ronald
Hawkins, Paul
Percival, Ian


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hayhoe, Barney
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hicks, Robert
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Higgins, Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hiley, Joseph
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bryan, Paul
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N &amp; M)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Buck, Antony
Holland, Philip
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Holt, Miss Mary
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hordern, Peter
Raison, Timothy


Carlisle, Mark
Hornby, Richard
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Channon, Paul
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Redmond, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hunt, John
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Churchill, W. S.
James, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Clegg, Walter
Jessel, Toby
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cockeram, Eric

Ridsdale, Julian


Cooke, Robert
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Coombs, Derek
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Cooper, A. E.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cordle, John
Jopling, Michael
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cormack, Patrick
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rost, Peter


Costain, A. P.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Royle, Anthony


Critchley, Julian
Kimball, Marcus
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Crowder, F. P.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Scott, Nicholas


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kinsey, J. R.
Sharples, Richard


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kirk, Peter
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shelton, William (Clapham)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Knox, David
Simeons, Charles


Dean, Paul
Lambton, Lord
Sinclair, Sir George


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lamont, Norman
Skeet, T. H. H.


Digby, Simon Wingfleld
Lane, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Dixon, Piers
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Soref, Harold


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Speed, Keith


Drayson, G. B.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Spence, John


du Cann. Rt. Hn. Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sproat, Iain


Dykes, Hugh
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)



Eden, Sir John
Longden, Gilbert
Stainton, Keith


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Loveridge, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Luce, R. N.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
McArthur, Ian
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Eyre, Reginald
McCrindle, R. A.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McLaren, Martin
Stokes, John


Fidler, Michael
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Tapsell, Peter


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maddan, Martin
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Fortescue. Tim
Madel, David
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Foster, Sir John
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Fowler, Norman
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Tebbit, Norman


Fox, Marcus
Mawby, Ray
Temple, John M.


Fry, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Gardner Edward
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire.W)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tilney, John


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Money, Ernle
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Trew, Peter


Goodhart, Philip
Monro, Hector
Tugendhat, Christopher


Goodhew, Victor
Montgomery, Fergus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gorst, John




Gower, Raymond
More, Jasper
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Green, Alan
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Waddington, David


Grieve, Percy
Morrison, Charles
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Griffiths. Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mudd, David
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Murton, Oscar
Wall, Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Neave, Airey
Walters, Dennis


Gummer, Selwyn
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Ward, Dame Irene


Gurden, Harold
Normanton, Tom
Warren, Kenneth


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Nott, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Onslow, Cranley
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
White, Roger (Gravesend)







Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Woodnutt, Mark



Wiggin, Jerry
Worsley, Marcus
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Wilkinson, John
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke and


Winterton, Nicholas
Younger, Hn. George
Mr. Hamish Gray.


Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard






NOES


Abse, Leo
Foley, Maurice
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Foot, Michael
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Ashley, Jack
Ford, Ben
Marks, Kenneth


Ashton, Joe
Forrester, John
Marquand, David


Atkinson, Norman
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Marsden, F.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Freeson, Reginald
Marten, Neil


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mayhew, Christopher


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Golding, John
Meacher, Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Biffen, John
Gourlay, Harry
Mendelson, John


Bishop, E. S.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mikardo, Ian


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Millan, Bruce


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Body, Richard
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Milne, Edward


Booth, Albert
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)



Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Hamling, William
Moate, Roger


Bradley, Tom
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Molloy, William


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hardy, Peter
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Proven)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Buchan, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hooson, Emlyn
Moyle, Roland


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Horam, John
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Murray, Ronald King


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oakes, Gordon


Cant, R. B.
Huckfield, Leslie
Ogden, Eric


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Halloran, Michael


Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oram, Bert


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, Maurice


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Stanley


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hunter, Adam
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Oswald, Thomas


Cohen, Stanley
Janner, Greville
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Coleman, Donald
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Padley, Walter


Concannon, J. D.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Paget, R. T.


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cronin, John
John, Brynmor
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dalyell, Tarn
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pendry, Tom


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham.S.)
Pentland, Norman


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Prescott, John


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kelley, Richard
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Deakins, Eric
Kerr, Russell
Price, William (Rugby)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kinnock, Neil
Probert, Arthur


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lambie. David
Rankin, John


Dempsey, James
Lamond, James
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Doig, Peter
Latham, Arthur
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dormand, J. D.
Leadbitter, Ted
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Leonard, Dick
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Driberg, Tom
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Dunn, James A
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dunnett, Jack
Lomas, Kenneth
Roper, John


Eadie, Alex
Loughlin, Charles
Rose, Paul B.


Edalman, Maurice
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rowlands, Ted


Ellis, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Russell, Sir Ronald


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Sandelson, Neville


Evans, Fred
McCartney, Hugh
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Ewing, Harry
McElhone, Frank
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Farr, John
McGuire, Michael
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Faulds, Andrew
Mackenzie, Gregor
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Mackie, John
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackintosh, John P.
Sillars, James


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Maclennan, Robert
Silverman, Julius


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Skinner, Dennis


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)







Spearing, Nigel
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Whitlock, William


Spriggs, Leslie
Urwin, T. W.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Stallard, A. W.
Varley, Eric G.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wainwright, Edwin
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Strang, Gavin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Swain, Thomas
Wallace, George
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Watkins, David
Woof, Robert


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Weitzman, David



Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Wellbeloved, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tinn, James
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mr. Walter Harrison and


Tomney, Frank
White, James (Glasgow. Pollok)
Mr. Joseph Harper


Torney, Tom
Whitehead, Phillip

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after Eleven o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [2nd May].

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

Orders of the Day — NORTH AYRSHIRE (ROADS COMMUNICATIONS)

11.3 p.m.

Mr. David Lambie: I wish to thank Mr. Speaker for the opportunity of initiating this debate, although, as a Scottish Member who still resides in Scotland and who on Thursdays normally catches the 11.30 p.m. train from Euston, it is for me a doubtful blessing.
I wish to draw the Secretary of State's attention to the urgent need for a direct road link from North Ayrshire to the national motorway network and to call on him to use his influence in the appropriate Cabinet Committee to obtain the necessary allocation of moneys to allow this construction to proceed at once. I shall not try to score debating points against the Government or to apportion blame for past mistakes, but I want to put to the Minister valid points of argument in support of the case for a direct road link from North Ayrshire.
I recently sent to the Minister a memorandum prepared by the Irvine Development Corporation on this subject. In view of some of my previous criticisms of Irvine Development Corporation, I wish to put on record my appreciation

of the work done by the corporation in the preparation of this booklet and to acknowledge that most of my arguments and facts used in this debate are taken from the memorandum.
During the last year, as Member of Parliament for Central Ayrshire, I have had representations made to me from individual industrialists in my constituency that their companies were at a handicap in bringing in raw materials and sending out their finished products because of the lack of adequate roads in the area. Along with three other Ayrshire Members, I attended a meeting in Kilmarnock with the Committee of office bearers of the Ayrshire Chamber of Industries where the same points were made. It was put to us forcibly that the greatest single drawback to utilising the present industrial potential of existing firms and to providing an attractive environment for incoming firms was the Ayrshire road system. They all stressed the need, as does the Irvine Development Corporation, for a direct link from the M74—A74 from the north and central areas of Ayrshire to the motorway network of the United Kingdom.
During the 1960s two Government White Papers relating to the development of the Scottish economy were produced. Both of these White Papers referred specifically to investment on roads. In November, 1963, the White Paper "Central Scotland, a Programme for Development and Growth", suggested an investment programme of £101 million for the period 1964–69 to provide an efficient system of main trunk roads within Central Scotland and to give good connecting links with the highway network of England and Wales to the south. A list of routes was included in this White Paper which would be constructed as motorways or dual carriageways by 1970, none of which was in the Ayrshire area.
In January, 1966, the second White Paper—"The Scottish Economy 1965–70;a Plan for Expansion"—was published. The Government at that time approved expenditure of £137 million on the road programme over the five years from 1965 to 1970, including approximately £82 million for trunk roads and motorways. The White Paper said that by 1970 Scotland could expect to have its main modern road network virtually completed between the main industrial areas of the central belt and the main connections to the motorway system of England and Wales.
A further White Paper entitled "The Scottish Roads in the 1970s"was published in March, 1969. An investment programme of the order of £480 million was envisaged, of which £40 million was allocated for the completion of the programme referred to in the previous White Paper.
The Government's plans for road construction to 1980–81 did not include any radical change in the existing Ayrshire road network. Existing roads were to be improved to give better alignment and width; various bypasses were approved to eliminate serious bottlenecks. Examples were the Irvine, Ayr and Kilmarnock bypasses and a new road network to serve the designated area of Irvine New Town.
In spite of the emphasis being on providing roads to serve expansion areas in Scotland and the need to bring these areas together, and with regional routes to the rest of the United Kingdom, Ayrshire seems to have been forgotten by the planners in Edinburgh. The Kilmarnock bypass, the series of small schemes to give better alignment and width to the A.76 Dumfries-Kilmarnock road, and the A.78 Kilwinning-Greenock roads at present being carried out, or planned, are hardly likely to generate confidence and to stimulate industrial investment in the region, which includes the Irvine growth area and the tremendous potential of Hunterston.
In this debate I will not suggest a route for the direct road link from North Ayrshire to the national motorway system. That might be too dangerous for a local politician. However, a draft report of the West Central Scotland Plan Steering Committee produced in December, 1971, suggests that the A.76 Kilmarnock-Dumfries route is the preferred route from

Ayrshire to England because it is the most direct. This is also the policy being pursued by Ayr County Council. The alternative route from Ayrshire to the A.74—M.74 motorway is by the narrow A.71 which is an indirect, narrow route passing through small villages and towns such as Galston, Newmilnes and Darvel
The planners must think big at this stage. A new fast route is needed from the Irvine-Kilmarnock-Hunterston area, which will connect the new growth areas of the North Ayrshire district to the new motorways connecting Central Scotland with the south. Such a route could link with the Kilmarnock bypass which would connect to Irvine by means of the proposed Irvine-Kilmarnock principal road to replace the existing A.71. This is where I agree with the proposals of the Irvine Development Corporation.
If the Government accept that there should be massive industrial and port development at Hunterston—an iron ore terminal, general purpose quays and greenfield integrated steel mills, a new heart for a new industrial Scotland—a new direct motorway is needed at once in North Ayrshire. A port without modern road and rail connections to its hinterland must be a nonsense. If the Government accept The Scottish Council (Development and Industry) concept of Oceanspan, Hunterston and North Ayrshire must be the western end of that communication channel. The exploitation of the west coast deep water and the proposition that Central Scotland could become an industrial corridor for entry into North-Western Europe must mean a re-examination of the roads, with particular reference to extending the motorway system west from the Glasgow connurbation.
If radical growth in Scotland is to be accepted and properly planned for, the necessary decision must be taken to develop the road infrastructure before industrial expansion interferes with the free flow of traffic. Mistakes have been made in the past at local and national levels. I am not criticising previous decisions, but I appeal to the Minister for a quick decision in order to allow the industrial development to be successful. Ayr County Council's idea of improving the A.76 Kilmarnock-Dumfries road, making it into a trunk road by a series of small improvement schemes over


the next 10 years as proposed in the White Paper "Scottish Roads in the 1970s", will never provide the dynamic link to the region which is so essential to induce and sustain industrial investment.
An early commitment by the Government to the construction of the east-west link for the motorway system is essential. That will demonstrate to the people of Scotland the Government's confidence in the growth of the area and it will stimulate investment in industry which is so vital to the economy of the Irvine New Town and to the County of Ayr in general.
I have much pleasure in asking the Minister to give us the quick decision which is so vitally needed by my constituents.

11.14 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) on his good fortune in obtaining the Adjournment debate and I thank him particularly for the subject which he has raised, because not only is it a subject of great interest in any case but, as he will know, it is one of great constituency interest to me because my constituency neighbours that of the hon. Member. This subject affects both our constituencies very much.
I am particularly glad that the hon. Gentleman has given us a chance to have this debate for another reason. It will enable me to outline the various options open to us in what is, I think, a generally agreed aim—to give to Irvine New Town and associated developments round about it a good road link with the outside world.
Ayrshire will be a centre of considerable road-building activity in the coming years. More broadly, the Government's aim is to give every practicable encouragement to New Towns generally and to other centres of potential development in Scotland. I reaffirm that the Government are solidly behind the effective development of Irvine New Town, and we wish to see that it has the best communications the best facilities and the best infrastructure in order to be able to attract the industry which must come into the area to make the New Town a success.
When I say that we intend to provide these communications, I mean not only the central Government, who are fully responsible for the trunk road system, but also Ayr County Council, which, as highway authority, is responsible for principal roads, and as whose agent Irvine Development Corporation has agreed to act for the building of principal roads in the New Town designation area.
Within that area trunk and principal road works estimated to cost more than £7,100,000—to which the Exchequer direct contribution will be more than £6,500,000—are either in progress or planned. These include the main approach roads to the New Town centre, part of which is already complete, the Irvine by-pass, the A78, on which work is expected to start next summer, and the western section of a new Irvine-Kilmarnock link road to replace the present A71, construction of which is also expected to start next summer. Later, the extension of this link road to the Kilmarnock boundary and then eastwards as far as the Hurlford interchange is planned at a cost, additional to the figure which I mentioned earlier, of £2,750,000.
But the reason for the hon. Gentleman's choice of this evening's debate concerns the communications of North Ayrshire, including Irvine New Town, with the outside world, and in particular with Carlisle and the South. This is not an easy question to resolve, particularly as the traffic from Irvine to the south by all routes at present is very light. The total traffic on all these roads which is travelling from this area to the south amounts to no more than 3 per cent. of the total traffic using them. The remainder is local traffic between the local towns or local centres in Ayrshire.
This poses a difficult choice between two alternatives. The first possibility is to regard the Kilmarnock-Cumnock-Dumfries trunk road, the A76/A75, as the main outlet to Gretna and the south. Most of the existing traffic uses this road. The evidence from an origin destination study carried out by my Department in 1969 suggests that the A76—A75 route to join the A74 at Gretna is very much the preferred route, particularly for industrial and commercial vehicles from the Kilmarnock-Irvine area. We are already doing much to raise it to modern standards of width and alignment. Some of


the work has already been done towards this end, and there is a continuing programme of replacing the remaining weak bridges on this road.
An inner relief road for Dumfries is planned and bypasses of Cumnock and New Cumnock have been accepted as candidates for the trunk road system early in the second half of the 1970s. When these improvements have been completed, the A76 in Ayrshire will largely have been brought to a satisfactory standard for the traffic which it seems likely to have to carry.
The hon. Member referred to the alternative route, which I might call the east-west route. This comprises part of the Kilmarnock-Edinburgh principal road, the A71, as the shortest means of getting from the Hurlford interchange, which is outside Kilmarnock, to the main Glasgow-Gretna road, the M74, at Canderside and from there of course there is dual carriageway all the way south except for the Gretna bypass, which is under construction.
Because of the terrain through which it passes, the A71 is not at first sight the easiest or the quickest route to travel at present. This may be partly due to the fact that the figures I quoted show that, at present, the preferred route is the other one, the A75–76. But this part of the A71 is being steadily improved, also by schemes promoted by Ayr County Council and Lanarkshire County Council, the responsible highway authorities.
But this east-west route has a dual importance. Not only does it form the shortest route from the Irvine-Kilmarnock area to the M74, but, through its continuation eastwards to Edinburgh, it is of general importance for east-west communications. Apart from the potential developments at Hunterston, the A71 could gain an added significance as a direct route leading to the East of Scotland if the Oceanspan concept blossoms into reality.
A fast east-west link on the line of the A71 would also have some value for other towns in Ayrshire as a means of getting to the east and north, although the fastest and freest-flow route in this direction will, particularly after the Monkland and Renfrew motorways are completed, continue to be by the A77 to Glasgow and thence by the motorway

and dual-carriageway trunk road system, M8 and A80/M9.
The balance between these two alternatives is by no means clear cut. On the one hand, the present movements of traffic clearly appear to prefer the A76—A75 route and may possibly continue to do so. On the other hand, factors such as the scale and timing of development at Hunterston, which would have a widespread effect on communications requirements in West Central Scotland, have still to be decided, as has the outcome of the West Central Scotland study now being undertaken.
In these circumstances, the clearest picture that I can give the hon. Member tonight is that, pending these decisions, it would be premature to make a firm commitment now, particularly as massive investment would be needed to provide a completely new dual-carriageway direct route from the Irvine area to the M74, whichever route were taken.
I assure the hon. Member, however, that the Government are not shelving this or being complacent. We are waiting, as we must, for firm decisions on what kind of major development may be undertaken in the Irvine or Hunterston area. When these decisions are taken, we shall not delay in taking consequential decisions about communications, one of which could well be in favour of upgrading the A71 as a major through route. I do not mean necessarily upgrading it on its present route but round about that line.
In the meantime we intend to press ahead with a continuing series of improvements, both on the A76 and A75, and, with the co-operation of the local highway authorities concerned, on the A71 route, as well as planning improvements on those parts of the A74 in South Lanarkshire and Dumfriesshire which are not fully up to modern dual-carriageway standard.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Government and their predecessors had left Ayrshire behind in expenditure on roads. This idea came from the report of the Irvine Development Corporation which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. In passing, I also commend the Corporation for this interesting study, although I naturally cannot say that I fully accept all its conclusions. The hon. Gentleman mentioned from the report that out


of investment of £101 million allocated for roads during the years 1964 to 1969 under the 1963 White Paper, less than £4 million was spent in Ayrshire and that the only project of any magnitude in Ayrshire under construction which is included in the White Paper is the Kilmarnock bypass.
It is true that during the years 1964 to 1969 only £4 million was spent on road schemes in Ayrshire and, within that, virtually nothing in the Irvine area. This was genuinely because of the rethinking which the previous Government were undertaking of the concept of the planning underlying Irvine New Town. I think the Government were right to make sure that they had the correct directional planning for the New Town and that the road pattern would be the most appropriate and useful for the communications of the New Town. Now that the New Town is underway, the tempo of road building is speeding up, and we intend to maintain that momentum.
As examples of this, since Irvine New Town got under way, the Ayr bypass has been completed at a cost of £500,000 and there are no less than £7,100,000 worth of road schemes either in progress or planned within Irvine New Town. That figure is made up of the A78 Irvine bypass, costing £4,700,000, which is starting in the summer of 1973; the A71 Irvine bypass to the east of Dreghorn at a cost of £1 million which is due to start in the summer of 1973; the southern approach of Irvine town centre, stage one, costing £177,000, which has already been completed, while stage two of that approach, costing £350,000 is already planned. Then there is also the northern approach to Irvine town centre, costing

£827,000, upon which work is about to start, and other trunk roads associated with it amounting to £76,000.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point about previous years' expenditure in the area perhaps not having been up to what both of us would hope as Ayrshire Members of Parliament. The road programme in northern Ayrshire is, however, now well and truly under way and large sums of money are being committed to it. The consequential improvements to our communications in North Ayrshire will much benefit the area in the next year or two, when they are completed.
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this subject. I assure him again that the Government agree with him that this is a matter of great importance. As soon as we can get some clarify on the major decisions on investment and development in North Ayrshire, we shall be ready to take decisions upon communications for Irvine New Town as quickly as we can.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman in particular for outlining the benefits that he—and the Irvine Development Corporation—feel would be gained by taking the most direct route to the M74. I well appreciate those arguments. I hope that I have outlined my view on them and on contrary arguments which we shall have to take into account.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are very alive to the problem and that there will be no delay on the Government's part in taking a decision as quickly as possible as soon as the details of any development are fully known.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.